Complaint Against Four Corners, Filed July 19, 2018

Return Date: No return date scheduled 12-Person Jury
Hearing Date: 11/16/2018 10:00 AM - 10:00 AM

Courtroom Number: 2302
Location: District 1 Court FILED
Cook County, IL 7/19/2018 1:42 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS DOROTHY BROWN
CIRCUIT CLERK
COUNTY DEPARTMENT – CHANCERY DIVISION
COOK COUNTY, IL
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
2018CH09060
ERIK LUNA, individually, and on behalf of all )
others similarly situated, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 2018CH09060
)
4C KINZIE INVESTOR LLC d/b/a Highline )
Bar & Lounge, )
1001 W. LAKE OPCO, LLC d/b/a Federales, )
4C 1001 W. LAKE OPCO, LLC, )
4C 15 E. ILLINOIS OPERATIONS, LLC d/b/a )
Fremont Bar, )
FOUR CORNERS TAVERN FUND )
MANAGEMENT, LLC, )
1500 N. WELLS OPCO, LLC d/b/a 80 Proof )
f/k/a SteakBar, )
4C 1500 N. WELLS OPCO, LLC, )
TALBOTT ASSOCIATES, L.P. d/b/a 20 )
EAST, )
4C WRIGLEY, LLC d/b/a Brickhouse Tavern, )
KEYSTONE HOLDINGS CORP., )
4C RIVERSIDE, LLC d/b/a Porter Kitchen & )
Deck, )
CHEVAL PORTER MANAGER, LLC, )
WELLS HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a Benchmark )
Bar and Grill, )
WELLS HOLDINGS MANAGER, LLC, )
WEST LOOP TAP, L.L.C. d/b/a Westend Bar )
& Grill f/k/a Brownstone Tavern & Grill )
(Madison and Ada), )
SHEF AT OAK, INC. d/b/a Kirkwood Bar & )
Grill f/k/a Brownstone Tavern & Grill (Sheffield )
and Oakdale), )
RIVER NORTH TAP, INC. d/b/a Sidebar )
Grille, )
ROCCO’S, LLC d/b/a Ranalli’s, )
CLARK STREET RESTAURANT )
PARTNERS, LLC f/k/a 2450 N. Clark, Inc. )
d/b/a Gaslight, )
ASCLOSE, INC. d/b/a Schoolyard Tavern & )
Grill, )
) Jury Trial Demanded
THE CHASE TAVERN, INC. d/b/a Trellis )
Wine Bar, )
SALOON HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a The )
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
Crossing Tavern, )
SALOON HOLDINGS MANAGER, LLC, )
HARDTALES, INC. d/b/a Brownstone Tavern )
& Grill (Lincoln and Irving Park), )
FOUR CORNERS, a voluntary unincorporated )
association, )
FOUR CORNERS TAVERN FUND I, LLC, )
FOUR CORNERS TAVERN GROUP FUND )
INVESTOR, LLC, )
FOUR CORNERS TAVERN PARTNERS, )
LLC, )
FOUR CORNERS TAVERN GROUP INC., )
FOUR CORNERS HOLDINGS, LLC, )
FOUR CORNERS CAPITAL ADVISORS, )
LLC, )
FOUR CORNERS SHUTTLE, LLC, )
4C CHEVAL LLC, )
1001 W. LAKE, LLC, )
MATTHEW MENNA, and )
ANDREW GLOOR, )
)
Defendants. )
COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr.

Sharon A. Harris
Matthew C. De Re
Nickolas J. Hagman
ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
Chicago, Illinois 60602
(312) 440-0020 telephone
(312) 440-4180 facsimile
Firm I.D. No. 34418
Counsel for Plaintiff, the putative

Collective Group, and the putative Classes
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
THE DEFENDANTS .....................................................................................................................1
THE PLAINTIFF.........................................................................................................................19
JURISDICTION AND VENUE ..................................................................................................19
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ......................................................................................................20
FACTS RELEVANT TO PLAINTIFF ......................................................................................21
THE WAGE AND HOUR CLAIMS ..........................................................................................23
THE INCOME TAX CLAIMS ...................................................................................................30
COUNT I: Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ............................................................32
Collective Action Allegations ..........................................................................................32
Substantive Allegations ...................................................................................................35
COUNT II: Violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ......................................................38
Class Action Allegations ..................................................................................................38
COUNT III: Violation of the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance........................................43
COUNT IV: Violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ..............................48
COUNT V: Conversion ...............................................................................................................54
i
COUNT VI: Violation of Section 7434 of the Internal Revenue Code ....................................59

FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
COUNT VII: Violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act .........67
COUNT VIII: Civil Conspiracy .................................................................................................76
COUNT IX: Fraud .......................................................................................................................84
COUNT X: Negligent Misrepresentation ..................................................................................91
JURY DEMAND ........................................................................................................................100
ii
Representative Plaintiff Erik Luna (“Plaintiff”), individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, by and through counsel, brings this action against Defendants 4C Kinzie
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
Investor LLC d/b/a Highline Bar & Lounge, 1001 W. Lake Opco, LLC d/b/a Federales, 4C 1001
W. Lake Opco, LLC, 4C 15 E. Illinois Operations, LLC d/b/a Fremont Bar, Four Corners Tavern
Fund Management, LLC, 1500 N. Wells Opco, LLC d/b/a 80 Proof f/k/a SteakBar, 4C 1500 N.
Wells Opco, LLC, Talbott Associates, L.P. d/b/a 20 East, 4C Wrigley, LLC d/b/a Brickhouse
Tavern, Keystone Holdings Corp., 4C Riverside, LLC d/b/a Porter Kitchen & Deck, Cheval
Porter Manager, LLC, Wells Holdings, LLC d/b/a Benchmark Bar and Grill, Wells Holdings
Manager, LLC, West Loop Tap, L.L.C. d/b/a Westend Bar & Grill f/k/a Brownstone Tavern &
Grill (Madison and Ada), Shef at Oak, Inc. d/b/a Kirkwood Bar & Grill f/k/a Brownstone Tavern
& Grill (Sheffield and Oakdale), River North Tap, Inc. d/b/a Sidebar Grille, Rocco’s, LLC d/b/a
Ranalli’s, Clark Street Restaurant Partners, LLC f/k/a 2450 N. Clark, Inc. d/b/a Gaslight,
Asclose, Inc. d/b/a Schoolyard Tavern & Grill, The Chase Tavern, Inc. d/b/a Trellis Wine Bar,
Saloon Holdings, LLC d/b/a The Crossing Tavern, Saloon Holdings Manager, LLC, Hardtales,
Inc. d/b/a Brownstone Tavern & Grill (Lincoln and Irving Park), a voluntary unincorporated
association known as Four Corners, Four Corners Tavern Fund I, LLC, Four Corners Tavern
Group Fund Investor, LLC, Four Corners Tavern Partners, LLC, Four Corners Tavern Group
Inc., Four Corners Holdings, LLC, Four Corners Capital Advisors, LLC, Four Corners Shuttle,
LLC, 4C Cheval LLC, 1001 W. Lake, LLC, Matthew Menna, and Andrew Gloor (collectively,
“Defendants”), as follows:
THE DEFENDANTS
1. Defendant 4C Kinzie Investor LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with its
principal place of business located at 1040 West Randolph Street, Chicago, Illinois 60607. 4C
1
Kinzie Investor LLC does business as Highline Bar & Lounge, located at 169 West Kinzie Street,
Chicago, Illinois 60654. 4C Kinzie Investor LLC employs, and controls the payment of wages
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
to, bartenders and waiters who serve food and drinks (collectively, “Servers”) to Highline Bar &
Lounge’s customers. As such, 4C Kinzie Investor LLC is an “employer” of the Servers at
Highline Bar & Lounge as that term is defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(d), 820 ILCS 105/3(c), 820
ILCS 115/2, and 26 U.S.C. § 3401(d), and there is an “employment” relationship between 4C
Kinzie Investor LLC and those Servers as defined by 26 U.S.C. § 3121(b).
2. Defendant 1001 W. Lake Opco, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with
its principal place of business located at 1040 West Randolph Street, Chicago, Illinois 60607.
1001 W. Lake Opco, LLC does business as Federales, located at 180 North Morgan Street,
Chicago, Illinois 60607. 1001 W. Lake Opco, LLC employs, and controls the payment of wages
to, Servers who serve food and drinks to Federales’s customers. As such, 1001 W. Lake Opco,
LLC is an “employer” of the Servers at Federales as that term is defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(d),
820 ILCS 105/3(c), 820 ILCS 115/2, and 26 U.S.C. § 3401(d), and there is an “employment”
relationship between 1001 W. Lake Opco, LLC and those Servers as defined by 26 U.S.C. §
3121(b).
3. Defendant 4C 1001 W. Lake Opco, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company
with its principal place of business located at 1330 West Fulton Street, Chicago, Illinois 60607.
4C 1001 W. Lake Opco, LLC is the manager of Defendant 1001 W. Lake Opco, LLC. Through
1001 W. Lake Opco, LLC, 4C 1001 W. Lake Opco, LLC employs, and controls the payment of
wages to, Servers who serve food and drinks to Federales’s customers. As such, 4C 1001 W.
Lake Opco, LLC is an “employer” of the Servers at Federales as that term is defined by 29
U.S.C. § 203(d), 820 ILCS 105/3(c), 820 ILCS 115/2, and 26 U.S.C. § 3401(d), and there is an
2
“employment” relationship between 4C 1001 W. Lake Opco, LLC and those Servers as defined
by 26 U.S.C. § 3121(b).
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
4. Defendant 4C 15 E. Illinois Operations, LLC is an Illinois limited liability
company with its principal place of business located at 1040 West Randolph Street, Chicago,
Illinois 60607. 4C 15 E. Illinois Operations, LLC does business as Fremont Bar, located at 15
West Illinois Street, Chicago, Illinois 60654. 4C 15 E. Illinois Operations, LLC employs, and
controls the payment of wages to, Servers who serve food and drinks to Fremont Bar’s
customers. As such, 4C 15 E. Illinois Operations, LLC is an “employer” of the Servers at
Fremont Bar as that term is defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(d), 820 ILCS 105/3(c), 820 ILCS 115/2,
and 26 U.S.C. § 3401(d), and there is an “employment” relationship between 4C 15 E. Illinois
Operations, LLC and those Servers as defined by 26 U.S.C. § 3121(b).
5. Defendant Four Corners Tavern Fund Management, LLC is a Delaware limited
liability company with its principal place of business located at 1040 West Randolph Street,
Chicago, Illinois 60607. Four Corners Tavern Fund Management, LLC is the manager of
Defendant 4C 15 E. Illinois Operations, LLC. Through 4C 15 E. Illinois Operations, LLC, Four
Corners Tavern Fund Management, LLC employs, and controls the payment of wages to, Servers
who serve food and drinks to Fremont Bar’s customers. As such, Four Corners Tavern Fund
Management, LLC is an “employer” of the Servers at Fremont Bar as that term is defined by 29
“employment” relationship between Four Corners Tavern Fund Management, LLC and those
Servers as defined by 26 U.S.C. § 3121(b).
6. Defendant 1500 N. Wells Opco, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company
with its principal place of business located at 1040 West Randolph Street, Chicago, Illinois
3
60607. 1500 N. Wells Opco, LLC does business as 80 Proof, located at 1500 North Wells Street
Chicago, IL 60610. 1500 N. Wells Opco, LLC employs, and controls the payment of wages to,
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
Servers who serve food and drinks to 80 Proof’s customers. As such, 1500 N. Wells Opco, LLC
is an “employer” of the Servers at 80 Proof as that term is defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(d), 820
ILCS 105/3(c), 820 ILCS 115/2, and 26 U.S.C. § 3401(d), and there is an “employment”
relationship between 1500 N. Wells Opco, LLC and those Servers as defined by 26 U.S.C. §
3121(b).
7. Defendant 4C 1500 N. Wells Opco, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company
60607. 4C 1500 N. Wells Opco, LLC is the manager of Defendant 1500 N. Wells Opco, LLC.
Through 1500 N. Wells Opco, LLC, 4C 1500 N. Wells Opco, LLC employs, and controls the
payment of wages to, Servers who serve food and drinks to 80 Proof’s customers. As such, 4C
1500 N. Wells Opco, LLC is an “employer” of the Servers at 80 Proof as that term is defined by
29 U.S.C. § 203(d), 820 ILCS 105/3(c), 820 ILCS 115/2, and 26 U.S.C. § 3401(d), and there is
an “employment” relationship between 4C 1500 N. Wells Opco, LLC and those Servers as
defined by 26 U.S.C. § 3121(b). Prior to being known as 80 Proof, this bar and restaurant was
known as SteakBar.
8. Defendant Talbott Associates, L.P. is an Illinois limited partnership with its
principal place of business located at 1040 West Randolph Street, Chicago, Illinois 60607.
Talbott Associates, L.P. does business as 20 East, located at 20 East Delaware Place, Chicago,
Illinois 60611. Talbott Associates, L.P. employs, and controls the payment of wages to, Servers
who serve food and drinks to 20 East’s customers. As such, Talbott Associates, L.P. is an
“employer” of the Servers at 20 East as that term is defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(d), 820 ILCS
4
105/3(c), 820 ILCS 115/2, and 26 U.S.C. § 3401(d), and there is an “employment” relationship
between Talbott Associates, L.P. and those Servers as defined by 26 U.S.C. § 3121(b).
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
9. Defendant 4C Wrigley, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its
Wrigley, LLC does business as Brickhouse Tavern, located at 3647 North Clark Street, Chicago,
Illinois 60613. 4C Wrigley, LLC employs, and controls the payment of wages to, Servers who
serve food and drinks to Brickhouse Tavern’s customers. As such, 4C Wrigley, LLC is an
“employer” of the Servers at Brickhouse Tavern as that term is defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(d),
relationship between 4C Wrigley, LLC and those Servers as defined by 26 U.S.C. § 3121(b).
10. Defendant Keystone Holdings Corp. is an Illinois corporation with its principal
place of business located at 1040 West Randolph Street, Chicago, Illinois 60607. Keystone
Holdings Corp. is the manager of Defendant 4C Wrigley, LLC. Through 4C Wrigley, LLC,
Keystone Holdings Corp. employs, and controls the payment of wages to, Servers who serve
food and drinks to Brickhouse Tavern’s customers. As such, Keystone Holdings Corp. is an
“employer” of the Servers at Brickhouse Tavern as that term is defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(d),
relationship between Keystone Holdings Corp. and those Servers as defined by 26 U.S.C. §
3121(b).
11. Defendant 4C Riverside, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its
Riverside, LLC does business as Porter Kitchen & Deck, located at 150 North Riverside Plaza,
Chicago, Illinois 60606. 4C Riverside, LLC employs, and controls the payment of wages to,
5
Servers who serve food and drinks to Porter Kitchen & Deck’s customers. As such, 4C
Riverside, LLC is an “employer” of the Servers at Porter Kitchen & Deck as that term is defined
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
by 29 U.S.C. § 203(d), 820 ILCS 105/3(c), 820 ILCS 115/2, and 26 U.S.C. § 3401(d), and there
is an “employment” relationship between 4C Riverside, LLC and those Servers as defined by 26
U.S.C. § 3121(b).
12. Defendant Cheval Porter Manager, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company
60607. Cheval Porter Manager, LLC is the manager of Defendant 4C Riverside, LLC. Through
4C Riverside, LLC, Cheval Porter Manager, LLC employs, and controls the payment of wages
to, Servers who serve food and drinks to Porter Kitchen & Deck’s customers. As such, Cheval
Porter Manager, LLC is an “employer” of the Servers at Porter Kitchen & Deck as that term is
defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(d), 820 ILCS 105/3(c), 820 ILCS 115/2, and 26 U.S.C. § 3401(d),
and there is an “employment” relationship between Cheval Porter Manager, LLC and those
Servers as defined by 26 U.S.C. § 3121(b).
13. Defendant Wells Holdings, LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with its
principal place of business located at 1040 West Randolph Street, Chicago, Illinois 60607. Wells
Holdings, LLC does business as Benchmark Bar and Grill, located at 1510 North Wells Street,
Chicago, Illinois 60610. Wells Holdings, LLC employs, and controls the payment of wages to,
Servers who serve food and drinks to Benchmark Bar and Grill’s customers. As such, Wells
Holdings, LLC is an “employer” of the Servers at Benchmark Bar and Grill as that term is
defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(d), 820 ILCS 105/3(c), 820 ILCS 115/2, and 26 U.S.C. § 3401(d),
and there is an “employment” relationship between Wells Holdings, LLC and those Servers as
defined by 26 U.S.C. § 3121(b).
6
14. Defendant Wells Holding Manager, LLC is an Illinois limited liability company
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
60607. Wells Holding Manager, LLC is the manager of Defendant Wells Holdings, LLC.
Through Wells Holdings, LLC, Wells Holding Manager, LLC employs, and controls the
payment of wages to, Servers who serve food and drinks to Benchmark Bar and Grill’s
customers. As such, Wells Holding Manager, LLC is an “employer” of the Servers at
Benchmark Bar and Grill as that term is defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(d), 820 ILCS 105/3(c), 820
ILCS 115/2, and 26 U.S.C. § 3401(d), and there is an “employment” relationship between Wells
Holding Manager, LLC and those Servers as defined by 26 U.S.C. § 3121(b).
15. Defendant West Loop Tap, L.L.C. is an Illinois limited liability company with its
principal place of business located at 1040 West Randolph Street, Chicago, Illinois 60607. West
Loop Tap, L.L.C. does business as Westend Bar & Grill, located at 1326 West Madison Street
Chicago, Illinois 60607. West Loop Tap, L.L.C. employs, and controls the payment of wages to,
Servers who serve food and drinks to Westend Bar & Grill’s customers. As such, West Loop
Tap, L.L.C. is an “employer” of the Servers at Westend Bar & Grill as that term is defined by 29
“employment” relationship between West Loop Tap, L.L.C. and those Servers as defined by 26
U.S.C. § 3121(b). Prior to being known as Westend Bar & Grill, this bar and restaurant was
known as Brownstone Tavern & Grill (Madison and Ada).
16. Defendant Shef at Oak, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of
business located at 1040 West Randolph Street, Chicago, Illinois 60607. Shef at Oak, Inc. does
business as Kirkwood Bar & Grill, located at 2934 North Sheffield Avenue, Chicago, Illinois
60657. Shef at Oak, Inc. employs, and controls the payment of wages to, Servers who serve food
7
and drinks to Kirkwood Bar & Grill’s customers. As such, Shef at Oak, Inc. is an “employer” of
the Servers at Kirkwood Bar & Grill as that term is defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(d), 820 ILCS
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
between Shef at Oak, Inc and those Servers as defined by 26 U.S.C. § 3121(b). Prior to being
known as Kirkwood Bar & Grill, this bar and restaurant was known as Brownstone Tavern &
Grill (Sheffield and Oakdale).
17. Defendant River North Tap, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place
of business located at 1040 West Randolph Street, Chicago, Illinois 60607. River North Tap, Inc.
does business as Sidebar Grille, located at 221 North LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60601.
River North Tap, Inc. employs, and controls the payment of wages to, Servers who serve food
and drinks to Sidebar Grille’s customers. As such, River North Tap, Inc. is an “employer” of the
Servers at Sidebar Grille as that term is defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(d), 820 ILCS 105/3(c), 820
ILCS 115/2, and 26 U.S.C. § 3401(d), and there is an “employment” relationship between River
North Tap, Inc. and those Servers as defined by 26 U.S.C. § 3121(b).
18. Defendant Rocco’s, LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with its principal
place of business located at 1040 West Randolph Street, Chicago, Illinois 60607. Rocco’s, LLC
does business as Ranalli’s, located at 1925 North Lincoln Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, 60614.
Rocco’s, LLC employs, and controls the payment of wages to, Servers who serve food and
drinks to Ranalli’s’s customers. As such, Rocco’s, LLC is an “employer” of the Servers at
Ranalli’s as that term is defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(d), 820 ILCS 105/3(c), 820 ILCS 115/2, and
26 U.S.C. § 3401(d), and there is an “employment” relationship between Rocco’s, LLC and
those Servers as defined by 26 U.S.C. § 3121(b).
8
19. Defendant Clark Street Restaurant Partners, LLC is an Illinois limited liability
company with its principal place of business located at 1040 West Randolph Street, Chicago,
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
Illinois 60607. Clark Street Restaurant Partners, LLC does business as Gaslight, located at 2450
North Clark Street, Chicago, Illinois 60614. Clark Street Restaurant Partners, LLC employs, and
controls the payment of wages to, Servers who serve food and drinks to Gaslight’s customers.
As such, Clark Street Restaurant Partners, LLC is an “employer” of the Servers at Gaslight as
that term is defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(d), 820 ILCS 105/3(c), 820 ILCS 115/2, and 26 U.S.C. §
3401(d), and there is an “employment” relationship between Clark Street Restaurant Partners,
LLC and those Servers as defined by 26 U.S.C. § 3121(b).
20. Until approximately June 13, 2018, 2450 N. Clark, Inc. was an Illinois
corporation with its principal place of business located at 1040 West Randolph Street, Chicago,
Illinois 60607. 2450 N. Clark, Inc. did business as Gaslight, located at 2450 North Clark Street,
Chicago, Illinois 60614. 2450 N. Clark, Inc. employed, and controlled the payment of wages to,
Servers who served food and drinks to Gaslight’s customers. As such, 2450 N. Clark, Inc. was
an “employer” of the Servers at Gaslight as that term is defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(d), 820 ILCS
between 2450 N. Clark, Inc. and those Servers as defined by 26 U.S.C. § 3121(b). On or about
June 13, 2018, 2450 N. Clark, Inc. was merged into, and consolidated with, Defendant Clark
Street Restaurant Partners, LLC. On information and belief, this merger and consolidation was
cosmetic only, did not affect Gaslight’s operations, and transferred any and all ongoing liabilities
from 2450 N. Clark, Inc. to Clark Street Restaurant Partners, LLC.
21. Defendant Asclose, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of
business located at 1259 West Foster Avenue, #1, Chicago, Illinois 60640. Until approximately
9
June 2018, Asclose, Inc. did business as Schoolyard Tavern & Grill, located at 3258 North
Southport Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60657. However, in approximately June 2018, Asclose, Inc.
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
was sold to a new owner (or owners).1 On information and belief, that sale did not affect any of
Asclose, Inc.’s ongoing liabilities. Prior to that sale, Asclose, Inc.’s principal place of business
was located at 1040 West Randolph Street, Chicago, Illinois 60607. Until approximately June
2018, Asclose, Inc. employed, and controlled the payment of wages to, Servers who served food
and drinks to Schoolyard Tavern & Grill’s customers. As such, Asclose, Inc. was an “employer”
of the Servers at Schoolyard Tavern & Grill as that term is defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(d), 820
ILCS 105/3(c), 820 ILCS 115/2, and 26 U.S.C. § 3401(d), and there was an “employment”
relationship between Asclose, Inc. and those Servers as defined by 26 U.S.C. § 3121(b).
22. Defendant The Chase Tavern, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal
place of business located at 1040 West Randolph Street, Chicago, Illinois 60607. From
approximately November 2013 through June 2015, The Chase Tavern, Inc. did business as Trellis
Wine Bar, located at 2426 North Racine Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60614. During that time, The
Chase Tavern, Inc. employed, and controlled the payment of wages to, Servers who served food
and drinks to Trellis Wine Bar’s customers. As such, The Chase Tavern, Inc. was an “employer”
of the Servers at Trellis Wine Bar as that term is defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(d), 820 ILCS
105/3(c), 820 ILCS 115/2, and 26 U.S.C. § 3401(d), and there was an “employment” relationship
between The Chase Tavern, Inc. and those Servers as defined by 26 U.S.C. § 3121(b).
23. Defendant Saloon Holdings, LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with its
principal place of business located at 1040 West Randolph Street, Chicago, Illinois 60607. Until
approximately 2017, Saloon Holdings, LLC did business as The Crossing Tavern, located at
1
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-schoolyard-tavern-links-four-corners-20180611-story.html
10
2548 North Southport Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60614. During that time, Saloon Holdings, LLC
employed, and controlled the payment of wages to, Servers who served food and drinks to The
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
Crossing Tavern’s customers. As such, Saloon Holdings, LLC was an “employer” of the Servers
at The Crossing Tavern as that term is defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(d), 820 ILCS 105/3(c), 820
ILCS 115/2, and 26 U.S.C. § 3401(d), and there was an “employment” relationship between
Saloon Holdings, LLC and those Servers as defined by 26 U.S.C. § 3121(b).
24. Defendant Saloon Holdings Manager, LLC is an Illinois limited liability company
60607. Saloon Holdings Manager, LLC is the manager of Defendant Saloon Holdings, LLC.
Through Saloon Holdings, LLC, Saloon Holdings Manager, LLC employs, and controls the
payment of wages to, Servers who serve food and drinks to The Crossing Tavern’s customers.
As such, Saloon Holdings Manager, LLC is an “employer” of the Servers at The Crossing Tavern
as that term is defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(d), 820 ILCS 105/3(c), 820 ILCS 115/2, and 26
U.S.C. § 3401(d), and there is an “employment” relationship between Saloon Holdings Manager,
25. Defendant Hardtales, Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of
business located at 4711 W. Golf Road, Suite 1125, Skokie, Illinois 60076. Until approximately
2016, an unknown entity did business as Brownstone Tavern & Grill (Lincoln and Irving Park),
located at 3937 North Lincoln Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60613. However, in approximately
2016, Brownstone Tavern & Grill (Lincoln and Irving Park) was sold to Hardtales, Inc. On
information and belief, that sale did not affect the Brownstone Tavern & Grill (Lincoln and
Irving Park)’s operations, and any and all ongoing liabilities of the unknown entity as pertaining
to the Brownstone Tavern & Grill (Lincoln and Irving Park) were transferred to Hardtales, Inc.
11
Prior to that sale, that unknown entity employed, and controlled the payment of wages to,
Servers who served food and drinks to Brownstone Tavern & Grill (Lincoln and Irving Park)’s
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
customers. As such, that unknown entity was an “employer” of the Servers at Brownstone
Tavern & Grill (Lincoln and Irving Park) as that term is defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(d), 820
ILCS 105/3(c), 820 ILCS 115/2, and 26 U.S.C. § 3401(d), and there was an “employment”
relationship between that unknown entity and those Servers as defined by 26 U.S.C. § 3121(b).
26. Each of the foregoing bars and restaurants, and the entities (and parent entities)
that own and manage them, are part of a collection of bars and restaurants located in Chicago,
Illinois operating under the common “Four Corners” enterprise.2 As such, Defendant Four
Corners is a voluntary unincorporated association of entities operating the foregoing bars and
restaurants located in Chicago, Illinois. Like the constituent entities within the Four Corners
enterprise, Defendant Four Corners employs, and controls the payment of wages to, Servers who
serve food and drinks to customers at the bars and restaurants within the Four Corners enterprise.
As such, Defendant Four Corners was, and is, an “employer” of the Servers at the bars and
restaurants within the Four Corners enterprise as that term is defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(d), 820
ILCS 105/3(c), 820 ILCS 115/2, and 26 U.S.C. § 3401(d), and there was, and is, an
“employment” relationship between Defendant Four Corners and those Servers as defined by 26
U.S.C. § 3121(b).
27. In addition to the foregoing bars and restaurants, and the entities (and parent
entities) that own and manage them, several other entities operate within the Four Corners
enterprise.
2
See www.4cbars.com (“Four Corners is one of Chicago’s leading hospitality groups that owns and
operates … our current portfolio of 15 venues in Chicago.”)
12
28. Defendant Four Corners Tavern Fund I, LLC is a Delaware limited liability
company with its principle place of business at 1040 West Randolph Street, Chicago, Illinois
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
60607. Defendant Four Corners Tavern Fund Management, LLC is the manager of Four Corners
Tavern Fund I, LLC, and Four Corners Tavern Fund I, LLC is a part of the Four Corners
enterprise. Through its participation in the Four Corners enterprise, Four Corners Tavern Fund I,
LLC employs, and controls the payment of wages to, Servers who serve food and drinks to
customers at the bars and restaurants within the Four Corners enterprise. As such, Four Corners
Tavern Fund I, LLC is an “employer” of the Servers at the bars and restaurants within the Four
Corners enterprise as that term is defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(d), 820 ILCS 105/3(c), 820 ILCS
115/2, and 26 U.S.C. § 3401(d), and there is an “employment” relationship between Four
Corners Tavern Fund I, LLC and those Servers as defined by 26 U.S.C. § 3121(b).
29. Defendant Four Corners Tavern Group Fund Investor, LLC is a Delaware limited
liability company with its principle place of business at 1040 West Randolph Street, Chicago,
Illinois 60607. Four Corners Tavern Group Fund Investor, LLC is a part of the Four Corners
enterprise. Through its participation in the Four Corners enterprise, Four Corners Tavern Group
Fund Investor, LLC employs, and controls the payment of wages to, Servers who serve food and
drinks to customers at the bars and restaurants within the Four Corners enterprise. As such, Four
Corners Tavern Group Fund Investor, LLC is an “employer” of the Servers at the bars and
restaurants within the Four Corners enterprise as that term is defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(d), 820
ILCS 105/3(c), 820 ILCS 115/2, and 26 U.S.C. § 3401(d), and there is an “employment”
relationship between Four Corners Tavern Group Fund Investor, LLC and those Servers as
13
30. Defendant Four Corners Tavern Partners, LLC is a Delaware limited liability
company with its principle place of business at 1040 West Randolph Street, Chicago, Illinois
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
60607. Four Corners Tavern Partners, LLC is a part of the Four Corners enterprise. Through its
participation in the Four Corners enterprise, Four Corners Tavern Partners, LLC employs, and
controls the payment of wages to, Servers who serve food and drinks to customers at the bars and
restaurants within the Four Corners enterprise. As such, Four Corners Tavern Partners, LLC is
an “employer” of the Servers at the bars and restaurants within the Four Corners enterprise as
that term is defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(d), 820 ILCS 105/3(c), 820 ILCS 115/2, and 26 U.S.C. §
3401(d), and there is an “employment” relationship between Four Corners Tavern Partners, LLC
and those Servers as defined by 26 U.S.C. § 3121(b).
31. Defendant Four Corners Tavern Group Inc. is an Illinois corporation with its
principle place of business at 1040 West Randolph Street, Chicago, Illinois 60607. Four Corners
Tavern Group Inc. is the operating company for Four Corners Tavern Fund I, LLC, and is a part
of the Four Corners enterprise. Through its participation in the Four Corners enterprise, Four
Corners Tavern Group Inc. employs, and controls the payment of wages to, Servers who serve
food and drinks to customers at the bars and restaurants within the Four Corners enterprise. As
such, Four Corners Tavern Group Inc. is an “employer” of the Servers at the bars and restaurants
within the Four Corners enterprise as that term is defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(d), 820 ILCS
between Four Corners Tavern Group Inc. and those Servers as defined by 26 U.S.C. § 3121(b).
32. Four Corners Holdings, LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with its
principle place of business at 1040 West Randolph Street, Chicago, Illinois 60607. Four Corners
Holdings, LLC is a part of the Four Corners enterprise. Through its participation in the Four
14
Corners enterprise, Four Corners Holdings, LLC employs, and controls the payment of wages to,
Servers who serve food and drinks to customers at the bars and restaurants within the Four
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
Corners enterprise. As such, Four Corners Holdings, LLC is an “employer” of the Servers at the
bars and restaurants within the Four Corners enterprise as that term is defined by 29 U.S.C. §
203(d), 820 ILCS 105/3(c), 820 ILCS 115/2, and 26 U.S.C. § 3401(d), and there is an
“employment” relationship between Four Corners Holdings, LLC and those Servers as defined
by 26 U.S.C. § 3121(b).
33. Four Corners Capital Advisors, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with
its principle place of business at 1040 West Randolph Street, Chicago, Illinois 60607. Four
Corners Capital Advisors, LLC is a part of the Four Corners enterprise. Through its participation
in the Four Corners enterprise, Four Corners Capital Advisors, LLC employs, and controls the
payment of wages to, Servers who serve food and drinks to customers at the bars and restaurants
within the Four Corners enterprise. As such, Four Corners Capital Advisors, LLC is an
“employer” of the Servers at the bars and restaurants within the Four Corners enterprise as that
term is defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(d), 820 ILCS 105/3(c), 820 ILCS 115/2, and 26 U.S.C. §
3401(d), and there is an “employment” relationship between Four Corners Capital Advisors,
34. Four Corners Shuttle, LLC is an Illinois limited liability company with its
principle place of business at 3258 North Southport Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60657. Four
Corners Shuttle, LLC is a part of the Four Corners enterprise. Through its participation in the
Four Corners enterprise, Four Corners Shuttle, LLC employs, and controls the payment of wages
to, Servers who serve food and drinks to customers at the bars and restaurants within the Four
Corners enterprise. As such, Four Corners Shuttle, LLC is an “employer” of the Servers at the
15
bars and restaurants within the Four Corners enterprise as that term is defined by 29 U.S.C. §
203(d), 820 ILCS 105/3(c), 820 ILCS 115/2, and 26 U.S.C. § 3401(d), and there is an
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
“employment” relationship between Four Corners Shuttle, LLC and those Servers as defined by
26 U.S.C. § 3121(b).
35. 4C Cheval LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principle place of
business at 1040 West Randolph Street, Chicago, Illinois 60607. 4C Cheval LLC is a part of the
Four Corners enterprise. Through its participation in the Four Corners enterprise, 4C Cheval
LLC employs, and controls the payment of wages to, Servers who serve food and drinks to
customers at the bars and restaurants within the Four Corners enterprise. As such, 4C Cheval
LLC is an “employer” of the Servers at the bars and restaurants within the Four Corners
enterprise as that term is defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(d), 820 ILCS 105/3(c), 820 ILCS 115/2,
and 26 U.S.C. § 3401(d), and there is an “employment” relationship between 4C Cheval LLC
and those Servers as defined by 26 U.S.C. § 3121(b).
36. 1001 W. Lake, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principle
place of business at 1040 West Randolph Street, Chicago, Illinois 60607. Defendant Four
Corners Tavern Fund I, LLC is the manager of 1001 W. Lake, LLC, and 1001 W. Lake, LLC is a
part of the Four Corners enterprise. Through its participation in the Four Corners enterprise,
1001 W. Lake, LLC employs, and controls the payment of wages to, Servers who serve food and
drinks to customers at the bars and restaurants within the Four Corners enterprise. As such, 1001
W. Lake, LLC is an “employer” of the Servers at the bars and restaurants within the Four
Corners enterprise as that term is defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(d), 820 ILCS 105/3(c), 820 ILCS
115/2, and 26 U.S.C. § 3401(d), and there is an “employment” relationship between 1001 W.
Lake, LLC and those Servers as defined by 26 U.S.C. § 3121(b).
16
37. Matthew Menna is a real person, and a manager of Defendants 4C Kinzie Investor
LLC, 4C 1001 W. Lake Opco, LLC, Four Corners Tavern Fund Management, LLC, Wells
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
Holdings Manager, LLC, West Loop Tap, L.L.C., Rocco’s, LLC, Clark Street Restaurant
Partners, LLC, Four Corners Tavern Group Fund Investor, LLC, Four Corners Tavern Partners,
LLC, Four Corners Holdings, LLC, Four Corners Capital Advisors, LLC, Four Corners Shuttle,
LLC, Saloon Holdings Manager, LLC, and 4C Cheval LLC. Matthew Menna is also a partner in
Defendant Talbott Associates, L.P., the President of Defendants Keystone Holdings Corp., 2450
N. Clark, Inc., The Chase Tavern, Inc., and Four Corners Tavern Group Inc., and the Secretary of
Defendant River North Tap, Inc. Until its sale in approximately June 2018, Matthew Menna was
also the President of Defendant Asclose, Inc. On information and belief, Matthew Menna is also
a manager of Defendants 4C 1500 N. Wells Opco, LLC and Cheval Porter Manager, LLC, and is,
or was, a manger, officer, or member of the unknown entity that did business as Brownstone
Tavern & Grill (Lincoln and Irving Park), as well as the voluntary unincorporated association
known as Four Corners.
38. Andrew Gloor is a real person, and a manager of Defendants 4C Kinzie Investor
LLC, 4C 1001 W. Lake Opco, LLC, Four Corners Tavern Fund Management, LLC, Wells
Holdings Manager, LLC, West Loop Tap, L.L.C., Rocco’s, LLC, Clark Street Restaurant
Partners, LLC, Four Corners Tavern Group Fund Investor, LLC, Four Corners Tavern Partners,
LLC, Four Corners Holdings, LLC, Four Corners Capital Advisors, LLC, Four Corners Shuttle,
LLC, Saloon Holdings Manager, LLC, and 4C Cheval LLC. Andrew Gloor is also a partner in
Defendant Talbott Associates, L.P., the President of Defendants Shef at Oak, Inc. and River
North Tap, Inc., and the Secretary of Defendants Keystone Holdings Corp., Shef at Oak, Inc.,
The Chase Tavern, Inc., and Four Corners Tavern Group Inc. Until its sale in approximately
17
June 2018, Andrew Gloor was also the Secretary of Defendant Asclose, Inc. On information and
belief, Andrew Gloor is also a manager of Defendants 4C 1500 N. Wells Opco, LLC and Cheval
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
Porter Manager, LLC, and is, or was, a manger, officer, or member of the unknown entity that
did business as Brownstone Tavern & Grill (Lincoln and Irving Park).
39. As managers and/or officers of the business entities which comprise the Four
Corners enterprise, Matthew Menna and Andrew Gloor exercise significant control, oversight,
and authority relative to the entities within the Four Corners enterprise, and the Four Corners
enterprise itself. On information and belief, at each of the bars and restaurants within the Four
Corners enterprise, Matthew Menna and Andrew Gloor, on behalf of the Four Corners enterprise,
and the constituent entities thereof: (1) have the power to hire and fire Servers; (2) supervise and
control the hours of operation and the conditions of employment; (3) create, establish, maintain,
and enforce policies related to employee compensation, accounting, and recordkeeping; and (4)
are responsible for maintaining records relative to employee compensation, revenue, and
accounting. As such, Matthew Menna and Andrew Gloor are each an “employer” of the Servers
at the bars and restaurants within the Four Corners enterprise as that term is defined by 29 U.S.C.
§ 203(d), 820 ILCS 105/3(c), 820 ILCS 115/2, and 26 U.S.C. § 3401(d), and there is an
“employment” relationship between Matthew Menna and Andrew Gloor, and those Servers, as
40. Based on the foregoing, all Defendants are part of the Four Corners business
“enterprise” as that term is defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(r)(1), and are jointly and severally liable
for the liabilities of the Four Corners enterprise.
18
41. Based upon information and belief, the Four Corners business enterprise has
many employees who are engaged in commerce, and many employees who regularly and
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
recurrently handle goods that have travelled in interstate commerce.
42. Based upon information and belief, the Four Corners business enterprise has an
annual gross volume of business done in excess of $500,000.
43. Based on the foregoing, the Four Corners business enterprise is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 203(s)(1)(A).
THE PLAINTIFF
44. Plaintiff Erik Luna is a resident and citizen of Cook County, Illinois, and worked
for the Four Corners business enterprise as a Server from approximately April 2011 until June
2018. Throughout that period, Plaintiff was an “employee” as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(e)(1),
820 ILCS 105/3(d), 820 ILCS 115/2, 26 U.S.C. § 3121(d), and 26 U.S.C. § 3401(c).
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
45. Jurisdiction over Defendants is proper pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-209(a)(1)
(transaction of any business within this State), section 2-209(a)(7) (the making or performance of
any contract or promise substantially connected with this State), section 2-209(b)(4) (natural
person or corporation doing business within this State), and section 2-209(c) (any other basis
now or hereafter permitted by the Illinois Constitution and the Constitution of the United States).
46. Venue is proper in this County pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-101, because this is the
County in which the transaction, or some part thereof occurred, and Defendants are persons and
corporations doing business in this County. 735 ILCS 5/2-102(a).
19
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
47. Defendants operate a collection of bars and restaurants located in Chicago, Illinois
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
operating under the common Four Corners enterprise.3
48. At each bar and restaurant within the Four Corners group, Defendants employ
Servers who serve food and drinks to customers. Defendants’ Servers are compensated at an
hourly rate of pay, and through tips bestowed upon them by Defendants’ customers.
49. At the end of each shift, before they leave work, Defendants’ Servers calculate
what they believe to be the accurate total amount of tips that were bestowed upon them by
Defendants’ customers, and accurately log and declare that total calculated amount of tips in
Defendants’ point-of-sale (“POS”) system.
50. Servers are given cash in an amount equal to the total amount of tips they
declared in Defendants’ POS system, and are allowed to keep that money.4
51. Servers do not receive any additional payments in connection with the tips that
were bestowed upon them by Defendants’ customers other than the Take Home Cash they
receive.
52. Defendants’ Servers’ hourly compensation—i.e., compensation that does not
derive from tips—is to be paid once every two weeks. However, Defendants usually retain the
entirety of Servers’ hourly compensation (and only that amount) for tax withholding purposes,
and therefore, Servers usually do not receive any additional compensation over and above their
Take Home Cash at the end of each pay period.
3
See www.4cbars.com (“Four Corners is one of Chicago’s leading hospitality groups that owns and
operates … our current portfolio of 15 venues in Chicago.”)
4
For clarity, the cash that Servers are given and allowed to keep in connection with tips bestowed upon
them by Defendants’ customers shall be referred to as “Take Home Cash.”
20
53. On the same biweekly basis, Servers receive paystubs (“Paystubs”) that are
supposed to reflect, inter alia, the number of hours Servers worked during the previous pay
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
period, the amount of hourly wage compensation they earned during the previous pay period, and
the amount of taxes withheld during the previous pay period. The Paystubs also state Servers’
“Cash Tips” during a given pay period.
54. In principle, the value of “Cash Tips” reflected on Servers’ Paystubs should
uniformly reflect the total amount of tips that were bestowed upon Servers by Defendants’
customers, the total amount of tips that Servers declared in Defendants’ POS system, and
Servers’ Take Home Cash, as these values should be coextensive.
55. However, in actuality, the amount of “Cash Tips” reflected on Servers’ Paystubs is
greater than the amount of Take Home Cash that Servers were given (and allowed to keep) and
the total amount of tips that they declared in Defendants’ POS system.
56. At the end of each calendar year, Defendants generate Form W-2 wage and tax
statements (“W-2s”) for their Servers using the information on Servers’ Paystubs. Accordingly,
Servers’ annual income, as set forth on their W-2s, is based upon the amount of “Cash Tips”
listed on Servers’ Paystubs during the previous calendar year.
FACTS RELEVANT TO PLAINTIFF
57. From approximately April 2011 until June 2018, Plaintiff was a bartender at a
Four Corners bar known as “Benchmark Bar and Grill” (“Benchmark”).
58. When he worked at Benchmark, Plaintiff was compensated at an hourly rate of
pay, and through tips bestowed upon him by Defendants’ customers.
59. At the end of each shift, before he left Benchmark, Plaintiff would calculate what
he believed to be the accurate total amount of tips that were bestowed upon him by Defendants’
21
customers, and would accurately log and declare that total calculated amount of tips in
Defendants’ POS system.

FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
60. Plaintiff was given Take Home Cash in an amount equal to the total amount of
tips he declared in Defendants’ POS system, and was allowed to keep that Take Home Cash.
61. Plaintiff did not receive any additional payments in connection with the tips that
were bestowed upon him by Defendants’ customers other than the Take Home Cash he received.
62. Plaintiff usually would not receive a paycheck at the end of each pay period
because the entirety of his hourly compensation (and only that amount) was usually withheld for
tax purposes.
63. Plaintiff’s Paystubs routinely stated that Plaintiff’s “Cash Tips” were greater than
the amount of Take Home Cash that he was given (and allowed to keep) and the total amount of
tips he declared in Defendants’ POS system.
64. The amount of “Cash Tips” on Plaintiff’s Paystubs was used to calculate
Plaintiff’s annual income on his W-2s.
65. For example, during the pay period beginning on March 22, 2017 and ending on
April 4, 2017, Plaintiff worked five (5) separate shifts as a bartender at Benchmark. During that
pay period, Plaintiff believed that the accurate total amount of tips bestowed upon him by
Defendants’ customers was $2,437, and Plaintiff logged and declared that amount in Defendants’
POS system. See, records reflecting the value of the tips that Plaintiff declared in Defendants’
POS system, attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
66. During the pay period beginning on March 22, 2017 and ending on April 4, 2017,
Plaintiff received Take Home Cash in an amount equal to the total amount tips that he declared in
Defendants’ POS system—$2,437. This Take Home Cash constituted the only payments
22
Plaintiff received during the pay period beginning on March 22, 2017 and ending on April 4,
2017 in connection with the tips bestowed upon him by Defendants’ customers.
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
67. However, Plaintiff’s Paystub for that same pay period states that Plaintiff’s “Cash
Tips” were $2,850. See, Plaintiff’s Paystub for the pay period beginning on March 22, 2017 and
ending on April 4, 2017, attached hereto as Exhibit 2. That Paystub also indicates that the
entirety of Plaintiff’s hourly compensation (and no more)—$316.60—was withheld for tax
purposes.5 See, Exhibit 2.
THE WAGE AND HOUR CLAIMS
68. Applicable here, the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”)—codified as 29 U.S.C.
§§ 201, et seq.—the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (“IMWL”)—codified as 820 ILCS 105/1, et
seq.—and the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance (“Chicago Ordinance”)—codified as Chi.
Mun. Code §§ 1-24-010, et seq.—all establish a minimum hourly rate at which employers must
compensate employees (i.e., a minimum wage).
69. From July 24, 2009 through the present, the FLSA provided that employees are to
be compensated at an hourly rate of at least $7.25 per hour. 29 U.S.C. § 206(a)(1)(C). Prior to
that, from July 24, 2007 through July 23, 2008, the FLSA provided that employees are to be
compensated at an hourly rate of at least $5.85 per hour (29 U.S.C. § 206(a)(1)(A)), and from
July 24, 2008 through July 23, 2009, the FLSA provided that employees are to be compensated
at an hourly rate of at least $6.55 per hour (29 U.S.C. § 206(a)(1)(B)).
70. Relative to “tipped employees”—as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 203(t)—the FLSA
permits employers to credit the amount of tips employees receive towards employees’ hourly rate
5
Accordingly, Plaintiff did not receive a paycheck for the pay period beginning on March 22, 2017 and
ending on April 4, 2017.
23
of pay, so long as employers pay “tipped employees” a cash wage of at least $2.13 per hour. 29
U.S.C. § 203(m)(2); 29 CFR § 531.59(a).

FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
71. From July 1, 2010 through the present, the IMWL provided that employees are to
be compensated at an hourly rate of at least $8.25 per hour. 820 ILCS 105/4(a)(1). Prior to that:
(1) from July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008, the IMWL provided that employees are to be
compensated at an hourly rate of at least $7.50 per hour; (2) from July 1, 2008 through June 30,
2009, the IMWL provided that employees are to be compensated at an hourly rate of at least
$7.75 per hour; and (3) from July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010, the IMWL provided that
employees are to be compensated at an hourly rate of at least $8.00 per hour. 820 ILCS
105/4(a)(1).
72. Relative to employees “engaged in an occupation in which gratuities have
customarily and usually constituted and have been recognized as part of the” employees’
compensation, the IMWL permits employers to credit the amount of tips employees receive
towards employees’ hourly rate of pay, so long as the amount credited does not exceed 40% of
the prevailing minimum wage rate—e.g., under the current minimum wage of $8.25 per hour,
employers must pay tipped employees a cash wage of at least $4.95 per hour. 820 ILCS
105/4(c).
73. The foregoing provisions of the FLSA and IMWL establish what is commonly
referred to as the “tip credit” because those provisions allow employers to credit a certain
amount of tips that employees receive towards the FLSA’s and IMWL’s applicable minimum
wage.
74. Because “whether a tip is to be given, and its amount, are matters determined
solely by the customer, who has the right to determine who shall be the recipient of the gratuity,”
24
it is well-established that “tips are the property of the employee.” 29 CFR § 531.52. As such,
“tip credit provisions of [the FLSA and IMWL] require employers to permit employees to retain
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
all tips received by the employee.” 29 CFR § 531.59(b); see also, Williams-Green v. J.
Alexander’s Restaurants, Inc., 277 F.R.D. 374, 378 (N.D. Ill. 2011) (“Tip credits are treated
identically under both the [IMWL] and [FLSA].”).
75. Accordingly, “an employer may only take the tip credit under the FLSA
and IMWL if each tipped employee retains all of his tips.” E.g., Starr v. Chicago Cut
Steakhouse, LLC, 75 F.Supp.3d 859, 864-65 (N.D. Ill. 2014) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 203(m)(2) and
820 ILCS 105/4(c)); Williams-Green, 277 F.R.D. at 378; 29 CFR § 531.52; 29 CFR § 531.59(b).
76. Similarly, employers are not permitted to withhold tip income from employees for
tax purposes. 26 U.S.C. § 3102(c)(1); 26 U.S.C. § 3402(k). Although employees can, after
receiving tips, remit a portion of those tips back to their employers for tax withholding purposes,
employees are not required to do so. 26 U.S.C. § 3102(c)(2); 26 U.S.C. § 3402(k).
77. The Chicago Ordinance—which went into effect on July 1, 2015—also
establishes a minimum wage for employees. From July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016, the
Chicago Ordinance provided that employees are to be compensated at an hourly rate of at least
$10.00 per hour (Chi. Mun. Code § 1-24-020(a)), from July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017, the
Chicago Ordinance provided that employees are to be compensated at an hourly rate of at least
$10.50 per hour (Chi. Mun. Code § 1-24-020(b)), and from July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018,
the Chicago Ordinance provided that employees are to be compensated at an hourly rate of at
least $11.00 per hour (Chi. Mun. Code § 1-24-020(c)). As of July 1, 2018, the Chicago
Ordinance requires employees to be compensated at an hourly rate of at least $12.00 per hour.
Chi. Mun. Code § 1-24-020(d).
25
78. Like the FLSA and IMWL, the Chicago Ordinance establishes a lesser minimum
wage relative to employees “engaged in an occupation in which gratuities have customarily and
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
usually constituted part of the” employees’ compensation. Chi. Mun. Code § 1-24-030(a). From
July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016, the minimum wage for tipped employees under the Chicago
Ordinance was $5.45 per hour (Chi. Mun. Code § 1-24-030(a)(1)), from July 1, 2016 through
June 30, 2017, the minimum wage for tipped employees under the Chicago Ordinance was $5.95
per hour (Chi. Mun. Code § 1-24-030(a)(2)), and from July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018, the
minimum wage for tipped employees under the Chicago Ordinance was $6.10 per hour (Chi.
Mun. Code § 1-24-030(a)(3)). As of July 1, 2018, the minimum wage for tipped employees
under the Chicago Ordinance is $6.25 per hour (Chi. Mun. Code § 1-24-030(a)(3)).
79. To avail itself of the lesser minimum wage for tipped employees—i.e., a tip credit
under the Chicago Ordinance—an employer must permit its employees to retain all of their tips.
Chi. Mun. Code § 1-24-030(b). Otherwise, an employer must pay tipped employees the
minimum wage applicable to employees who do not customarily receive tips. Chicago
Minimum Wage and Paid Sick Leave Rules, MW 2.04.
80. Here, at all times relevant, Plaintiff’s and Servers’ hourly rate of pay, taken alone,
irrespective of tips, was less than the applicable minimum rates established by the FLSA (29
U.S.C. § 206(a)(1)), the IMWL (820 ILCS 105/4(a)(1)), and the section of the Chicago
Ordinance pertaining to employees who do not customarily receive tips (Chi. Mun. Code § 1-24-
020).
81. Accordingly, Defendants were required to rely on a “tip credit” to satisfy the
minimum wage requirements set forth by the FLSA and the IMWL, and avail themselves of the
lesser minimum wage for tipped employees established by the Chicago Ordinance.
26
82. As discussed above, there is a discrepancy between the amount of “Cash Tips”
stated on Plaintiff’s and Servers’ Paystubs—a larger number—and the amount of Take Home
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
Cash that Plaintiff and Servers were actually given and allowed to keep—a smaller number.
Accordingly, only one of these numbers—i.e., the amount of “Cash Tips” stated on Plaintiff’s
and Servers’ Paystubs or the Take Home Cash that Plaintiff and Servers were given—accurately
reflected the amount of tips that were bestowed upon Plaintiff and Servers by Defendants’
customers.
83. The precise reason for the discrepancy between the amount of “Cash Tips” stated
on Plaintiff’s and Servers’ Paystubs and the amount of Take Home Cash that Plaintiff and
Servers were actually given and allowed to keep is unknown at this time. However, for purposes
of the “Wage and Hour Claims” set forth herein, it is assumed that the amount of “Cash Tips”
stated on Plaintiff’s and Servers’ Paystubs was accurate with respect to the actual amount of tips
that were bestowed upon Plaintiff and Servers by Defendants’ customers. Necessarily, this
means that the amount of Take Home Cash that Plaintiff and Servers were given and allowed to
keep was inaccurate with respect to the amount of tips that were bestowed upon Plaintiff and
Servers by Defendants’ customers. If the foregoing is true, then the amount of tips that were
bestowed upon Plaintiff and Servers by Defendants’ customers is greater than the amount of
Take Home Cash that Plaintiff and Servers were actually given and allowed to keep.
84. Plaintiff and Servers were not given any additional money that would eliminate
the discrepancy between the actual amount of tips that were bestowed upon them by Defendants’
customers—as reflected on their Paystubs, assuming those Paystubs are accurate—and the
amount of Take Home Cash that Plaintiff and Servers were given and allowed to keep. Instead,
Defendants retained those additional sums for their own benefit.
27
85. Defendants did not retain those additional sums for tax withholding purposes, as
those additional amounts were not listed on Plaintiff’s and Servers’ Paystubs as being withheld
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
for tax purposes. In fact, Defendants could not withhold those additional amounts for tax
purposes, as Defendants would only be permitted to do so if Plaintiff and Servers remitted those
amounts back to Defendants after Defendants gave them to Plaintiff and Servers. 26 U.S.C. §
3102(c); 26 U.S.C. § 3402(k).
86. Because Plaintiff and Servers did not receive the entirety of the tips that were
bestowed upon them by Defendants’ customers in the form of Take Home Cash, and Defendants
retained those additional amounts for their own benefit, Defendants cannot rely on a tip credit
relative to Plaintiff’s and Servers’ hourly rate of pay. E.g., 29 CFR § 531.52; 29 CFR §
531.59(b); Starr, 75 F.Supp.3d at 864-65; Williams-Green, 277 F.R.D. at 378.
87. Moreover, regardless of whether Defendants can rely on a tip credit relative to
Plaintiff’s and Servers’ hourly rate of pay, Defendants were not permitted to retain any portion of
the tips that were bestowed upon Plaintiff and Servers by Defendants’ customers. E.g., 29
U.S.C. § 203(m)(2)(B); 29 CFR § 531.52; 29 CFR § 531.54; 29 CFR § 531.59; Starr, 75
F.Supp.3d at 865; see also, 26 U.S.C. § 3102(c); 26 U.S.C. § 3402(k).
88. In addition, in accordance with the minimum wage and tip credit provisions of the
FLSA, IMWL, and Chicago Ordinance, Defendants agreed to compensate Plaintiff and Servers
at an hourly rate that complied with the applicable minimum wage, and to allow Plaintiff and
Servers to retain all tips that were bestowed upon Plaintiff and Servers by Defendants’
customers.
89. As such, the entirety of the tips that were bestowed upon Plaintiff and Servers by
Defendants’ customers were “wages” under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act
28
(“IWPCA”)—codified as 820 ILCS 115/1, et seq.—the FLSA, the IMWL, and the Chicago
Ordinance. 820 ILCS 115/2; 29 U.S.C. § 203(m); 820 ILCS 105/3(b); Chi. Mun. Code § 1-24-
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
010.
90. Since Defendants are not permitted to avail themselves of a tip credit with respect
to Plaintiff and Servers to satisfy Defendants’ minimum wage obligations under the FLSA,
IMWL, and Chicago Ordinance, and because all of the tips that were bestowed upon Plaintiff
and Servers by Defendants’ customers also constitute wages owed to Plaintiff and Servers,
Defendants did not pay Plaintiff and Servers the full amount of all wages to which they were
entitled, in violation of the FLSA, IMWL, Chicago Ordinance, and IWPCA. 29 U.S.C. §
206(a)(1); 29 U.S.C. § 203(m); 820 ILCS 105/4(a)(1); 820 ILCS 105/4(c); Chi. Mun. Code § 1-
24-020; Chi. Mun. Code § 1-24-030(b); 820 ILCS 115/4.
91. Similarly, because all of the tips that were bestowed upon Plaintiff and Servers by
Defendants’ customers are Plaintiff’s and Servers’ property, Defendants’ failure to remit the
entirety of those tips to Plaintiff and Servers constitutes conversion. Roderick Dev. Inv. Co., Inc.
v. Cmty. Bank of Edgewater, 282 Ill.App.3d 1052, 1057 (1st Dist. 1996) (“Conversion is any
unauthorized act, which deprives a man of his property permanently or for an indefinite time.”)
(internal quotations omitted).
92. Accordingly, Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated
individuals, brings claims under the FLSA, IMWL, Chicago Ordinance, and the IWPCA, as well
as for conversion (collectively, the “Wage and Hour Claims”) against Defendants.
93. With respect to Plaintiff’s FLSA claims, Plaintiff seeks to represent the
“Collective Group” of similarly situated employees defined below, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §
216(b).
29
94. With respect to Plaintiff’s IMWL claims, Plaintiff seeks to represent the “IMWL
Class” of similarly situated individuals defined below, pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-801.
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
95. With respect to Plaintiff’s Chicago Ordinance claims, Plaintiff seeks to represent
the “Chicago Ordinance Class” of similarly situated individuals defined below, pursuant to 735
ILCS 5/2-801.
96. With respect to Plaintiff’s IWPCA claims, Plaintiff seeks to represent the
“IWPCA Class” of similarly situated individuals defined below, pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-801.
97. With respect to Plaintiff’s conversion claims, Plaintiff seeks to represent the
“Conversion Class” of similarly situated individuals, pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-801.
THE INCOME TAX CLAIMS
98. In the alternative to Plaintiff’s Wage and Hour Claims, Plaintiff, individually, and
on behalf of other similarly situated individuals, brings claims under Section 7434 of the Internal
Revenue Code (“IRC Statute”)—codified as 26 U.S.C. § 7434—and the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”)—codified as 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961, et seq.—as well as for
common law civil conspiracy, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation (collectively, the “Income
Tax Claims”).
99. As discussed above, there is a discrepancy between the amount of “Cash Tips”
stated on Plaintiff’s and Servers’ Paystubs—a larger number—and the amount of Take Home
Cash that Plaintiff and Servers were actually given and allowed to keep—a smaller number.
Accordingly, only one of these numbers—i.e., the amount of “Cash Tips” stated on Plaintiff’s
and Servers’ Paystubs or the Take Home Cash that Plaintiff and Servers were given—accurately
reflected the amount of tips that were bestowed upon Plaintiff and Servers by Defendants’
customers.
30
100. The precise reason for the discrepancy between the amount of “Cash Tips” stated
on Plaintiff’s and Servers’ Paystubs and the amount of Take Home Cash that Plaintiff and
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
Servers were actually given and allowed to keep is unknown at this time. However, for purposes
of the Income Tax Claims set forth herein, it is assumed that the amount of “Cash Tips” stated on
Plaintiff’s and Servers’ Paystubs was inaccurate with respect to the actual amount of tips that
were bestowed upon Plaintiff and Servers by Defendants’ customers. Necessarily, this means
that the value of the Take Home Cash that Plaintiff and Servers were given and allowed to keep
was accurate with respect to the amount of tips that were bestowed upon Plaintiff and Servers by
Defendants’ customers. If the foregoing is true, then the amount Take Home Cash that Plaintiff
and Servers were actually given and allowed to keep is lesser than the amount of “Cash Tips”
stated on Plaintiff’s and Servers’ Paystubs.
101. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s and Servers’ Paystubs overstated the amount of taxable
income that Plaintiff and Servers actually received—i.e., the amount of “Cash Tips” stated on
Plaintiff’s and Servers’ Paystubs was greater than the amount of Take Home Cash that Plaintiff
and Servers were actually given and allowed to keep.
102. Because the amount of “Cash Tips” stated on Plaintiff’s and Servers’ Paystubs
was used to calculate the amount of Plaintiff’s and Servers’ taxable income on their W-2s—
instead of the amount of Take Home Cash that Plaintiff and Servers were actually given and
allowed to keep—Plaintiff and Servers were required to pay income tax on income that they did
not actually receive.
103. With respect to Plaintiff’s IRC Statute claims, Plaintiff seeks to represent the “Tax
Fraud Class” of similarly situated individuals defined below, pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-801.
31
104. With respect to Plaintiff’s RICO claims, Plaintiff seeks to represent the “RICO
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
105. With respect to Plaintiff’s civil conspiracy claims, Plaintiff seeks to represent the
“Conspiracy Class” of similarly situated individuals defined below, pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-
801.
106. With respect to Plaintiff’s fraud claims, Plaintiff seeks to represent the “Fraud
107. With respect to Plaintiff’s negligent misrepresentation claims, Plaintiff seeks to
represent the “Negligent Misrepresentation Class” of similarly situated individuals defined
below, pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-801.
COUNT I
Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(29 U.S.C. §§ 201, et seq.)
(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Collective Group)
108. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1-97 with the same
force and effect as though fully set forth herein.
Collective Action Allegations
109. Plaintiff brings this Count as a Collective Action on behalf of himself and the
Collective Group of similarly situation employees, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
110. Collective Group Definition: Plaintiff pursues the requested relief on behalf of
the following Collective Group:
All individuals who (1) currently work, or have worked, for Defendants as
Servers, or any other position with similar job duties, during the applicable statute
of limitations period, (2) were compensated at an hourly rate of pay, irrespective
of tips, that was less than $7.25 per hour, and (3) received, on or after July 19,
2015, a Paystub which stated that they were given a greater amount in “Cash
Tips” than they actually received in Take Home Cash.
32
111. Plaintiff is a member of the Collective Group because he was employed by
Defendants during the time period relevant to this action, was compensated at an hourly rate of
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
pay that was less than $7.25 per hour, and received Paystubs which stated that he was given a
greater amount in “Cash Tips” than he actually received in Take Home Cash.
112. Plaintiff’s FLSA Collective Action consent form is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
113. Although Plaintiff and the Collective Group members may have had different job
titles and/or worked in different locations throughout the time period relevant to this action, this
action may be properly maintained as a Collective Action because:
a. Plaintiff and Collective Group members performed substantially similar

job duties as Servers;
b. Plaintiff and Collective Group members were compensated at an hourly

rate of pay that was less than $7.25 per hour;
c. Plaintiff and Collective Group members calculated what they believed to

be the accurate amount of tips that were bestowed upon them by
Defendants’ customers, and accurately logged and declared that calculated
amount in Defendants’ POS system;
d. Plaintiff and Collective Group members were given Take Home Cash in
an amount equal to the amount of tips that they declared in Defendants’
POS system;
e. Other than their Take Home Cash, Plaintiff and Collective Group members
were not given any additional amounts to account for the amount of tips
that were actually bestowed upon them by Defendants’ customers during a
given shift;
f. Plaintiff and Collective Group members were not given and allowed to
keep all of the tips that were bestowed upon them by Defendants’
customers; and
g. Defendants uniformly retained the additional amounts in tips bestowed

upon Plaintiff and Collective Group members by Defendants’ customers
over and above what Plaintiff and Collective Group members were given
in Take Home Cash.
33
114. Defendants encouraged, required, and permitted Plaintiff and Collective Group
members to work without being properly compensated.

FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
115. Defendants knew that Plaintiff and Collective Group members performed work
that required them to be paid at a rate not less than the minimum wage established by the FLSA,
and that they were entitled to retain the full amount of tips that were bestowed upon Plaintiff and
Collective Group members by Defendants’ customers. Nonetheless, Defendants operated under
a uniform scheme to deprive Plaintiff and Collective Group members of a portion of the tips that
were bestowed upon Plaintiff and Collective Group members by Defendants’ customers, such
that Defendants cannot claim a tip credit with respect to Plaintiff’s and Collective Group
members’ hourly rate of pay. Therefore, Plaintiff and Collective Group members were
compensated at a rate that was less than the minimum wage established by the FLSA, and were
deprived of the full amount of tips that were bestowed upon them by Defendants’ customers.
116. Defendants’ conduct, as alleged herein, was willful and has caused significant
damage to Plaintiff and Collective Group members, as they were compensated at a rate that was
less than the minimum wage established by the FLSA and were deprived of the full amount of
tips that were bestowed upon them by Defendants’ customers.
117. Defendants are liable under the FLSA for failing to properly compensate Plaintiff
and Collective Group members at an hourly rate that satisfied the FLSA’s minimum wage
provisions, and retaining a portion of the tips that were bestowed upon Plaintiff and Collective
Group members by Defendants’ customers. Plaintiff requests that the Court authorize notice to
the members of the Collective Group to inform them of the pendency of this action and their
right to opt-in to this lawsuit—pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b)—for the purpose of seeking
34
unpaid compensation and liquidated damages under the FLSA, and the other relief requested
herein.
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
118. Plaintiff estimates that the Collective Group, including both current and former
employees over the time period relevant to this action, will include hundreds of members. This
is based on the fact that Defendants operated approximately twenty (20) bars and restaurants
during the time period applicable to this action, and each bar and restaurant employed about fifty
(50) Servers at any given time. The precise number of Collective Group members should be
readily available from Defendants’ personnel, scheduling, time, and payroll records maintained
in accordance with 29 U.S.C. § 211(c). Given the composition and size of the Collective Group,
its members may be informed of the pendency of this action directly via U.S. mail, e-mail, and
by posting notice in Defendants’ bars and restaurants.
Substantive Allegations
119. Plaintiff’s and Collective Group members’ work activities were for the direct and
substantial benefit of Defendants, and engaged them individually in “commerce,” as defined by
29 U.S.C. § 203(b).
120. At all times relevant, Plaintiff’s and Collective Group members’ hourly rate of
pay, taken alone, was less than the minimum $7.25 per hour rate established by the FLSA. 29
U.S.C. § 206(a)(1)(C).
121. The amount of “Cash Tips” stated on Plaintiff’s and Collective Group members’
Paystubs accurately reflected the amount of tips that were bestowed upon Plaintiff and
Collective Group members by Defendants’ customers during their respective shifts.
122. However, the Take Home Cash that was given to Plaintiff and Collective Group
members was less than the amount of tips that were bestowed upon Plaintiff and Collective
35
Group members by Defendants’ customers during their respective shifts (and less than the
amount of “Cash Tips” that was accurately stated on Plaintiff’s and Collective Group members’
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
Paystubs).
123. Plaintiff and Collective Group members did not receive any additional payments
in connection with the tips that were bestowed upon them by Defendants’ customers other than
the Take Home Cash they were given by Defendants.
124. Plaintiff and Collective Group members were not given and allowed to keep all of
the tips that were bestowed upon them by Defendants’ customers by Defendants’ customers.
Instead, Defendants uniformly retained the additional amounts in tips that were bestowed upon
Plaintiff and Collective Group members by Defendants’ customers over and above what Plaintiff
and Collective Group members were given in Take Home Cash.
125. As such, Defendants cannot claim a tip credit with respect to Plaintiff and
Collective Group members (29 U.S.C. § 203(m)(2)), and Plaintiff and Collective Group
members were compensated at a rate less than the minimum wage established by the FLSA (29
U.S.C. § 206(a)(1)(C)).
126. Moreover, Defendants unlawfully retained a portion of the tips that were
bestowed upon Plaintiff and Collective Group members by Defendants’ customers. 29 U.S.C. §
203(m)(2)(B).
127. Plaintiff and Collective Group members have been harmed as a direct and
proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct because they have been deprived of
compensation at a rate not less the minimum wage established by the FLSA, as well as the full
amount of tips bestowed upon them by Defendants’ customers.
128. Defendants knew of the FLSA requirements described herein.
36
129. Defendants’ violations of the FLSA requirements described herein were willful.
130. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), Plaintiff and Collective Group members are
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
entitled to: (1) compensation for all of the hours that they worked for Defendants’ benefit in an
amount equal to the difference between FLSA’s established minimum wage and Plaintiff’s and
Collective Group members’ hourly rate of compensation, irrespective of tip income; (2)
compensation in an amount equal to the amount of tips bestowed upon Plaintiff and Collective
Group members by Defendants’ customers that Defendants retained; and (3) liquidated damages
in an amount equal to all such unpaid compensation.
131. Plaintiff and Collective Group members are also entitled to reasonable attorneys’
fees and costs, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of the Collective Group, prays for
an Order as follows:
A. Finding that this action satisfies the prerequisites for maintenance as a

Collective Action, as set forth by 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and certifying the
Collective Group defined herein;
B. Designating Plaintiff as representative of the Collective Group and his

undersigned counsel as Collective Group Counsel;
C. Entering judgment in favor of Plaintiff and the Collective Group and

against Defendants;
D. Awarding Plaintiff and the Collective Group all unpaid compensation to

which they are entitled;
E. Awarding Plaintiff and the Collective Group liquidated damages in an

amount equal to the amount of the unpaid compensation to which they are
entitled;
F. Awarding Plaintiff and the Collective Group reasonable attorneys’ fees

and costs; and
37
G. Granting all such further and other relief as the Court deems just and
appropriate.
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
COUNT II
Violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law
(820 ILCS 105/1, et seq.)
(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the IMWL Class)
Class Action Allegations
133. Plaintiff brings this Count as a Class Action on behalf of himself and the IMWL
Class of similarly situation employees, pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-801.
134. IMWL Class Definition: Plaintiff pursues the requested relief on behalf of the
following IMWL Class:
Servers, or any other position with similar job duties, (2) were compensated at an
hourly rate of pay, irrespective of tips, that was less than $8.25 per hour, and (3)
received, on or after July 19, 2015, a Paystub which stated that they were given a
greater amount in “Cash Tips” than they actually received in Take Home Cash.
Excluded from the IMWL Class are: (1) Defendants, Defendants’ agents, subsidiaries, parents,
successors, predecessors, and any entity in which Defendants or their parents have a controlling
interest, and those entities’ current and former employees, officers, and directors; (2) the Judge
to whom this case is assigned and the Judge’s immediate family; (3) any person who executes
and files a timely request for exclusion from the IMWL Class; (4) any persons who have had
their claims in this matter finally adjudicated and/or otherwise released; and (5) the legal
representatives, successors and assigns of any such excluded person. Plaintiff hereby reserves
the right to amend the above class definition based on discovery and the proofs at trial.
135. Numerosity. The IMWL Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable. Plaintiff estimates that the IMWL Class, including both current and former
38
(50) Servers at any given time. The precise number of IMWL Class members should be readily
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
available from Defendants’ personnel, scheduling, time, and payroll records maintained in
accordance with 29 U.S.C. § 211(c).
136. Commonality and Predominance. There are questions of fact or law common to
the IMWL Class, which predominate over any questions affecting only individual members
including, inter alia, the following:
a. Whether Plaintiff’s and IMWL Class members’ Paystubs accurately

reflected the amount of tips that Defendants’ customers bestowed upon
Plaintiff and IMWL Class members;
b. Whether Plaintiff and IMWL Class members were given Take Home Cash
to account for what they believed, and accurately reported, to be the
amount of tips that Defendants’ customers bestowed upon Plaintiff and
IMWL Class members during a given shift;
c. Whether Plaintiff and IMWL Class members were given any additional
amounts, other than their Take Home Cash, to account for the amount of
tips that Defendants’ customers bestowed upon Plaintiff and IMWL Class
members during a given shift;
d. Whether Plaintiff and IMWL Class members were given and allowed to
keep all of the tips that Defendants’ customers bestowed upon Plaintiff
and IMWL Class members;
e. Whether Defendants retained the additional amounts in tips that

Defendants’ customers bestowed upon Plaintiff and IMWL Class members
over and above what Plaintiff and IMWL Class members were given in
Take Home Cash;
f. Whether Defendants were entitled to avail themselves of a tip credit

relative to the hourly rate of compensation paid to Plaintiff and IMWL
Class members;
g. Whether Plaintiff and IMWL Class members were compensated at an

hourly rate of pay that was less than the minimum rate of $8.25 per hour
established by the IMWL;
39
h. Whether Plaintiff and the members of the IMWL Class have sustained
damages and, if so, what is the proper measure of their damages; and
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
i. Whether Plaintiff and the members of the IMWL Class are entitled to the
relief sought, including attorney’s fees.
137. Adequacy. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the IMWL
Class. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned class counsel, who are competent and experienced in
the prosecution of complex and class action litigation. The interests of Plaintiff are aligned with,
and not antagonistic to, those of the IMWL Class.
138. Appropriateness. A class action is an appropriate method for the fair and efficient
adjudication of this controversy. The common questions of law and fact enumerated above
predominate over questions affecting only individual members of the IMWL Class. Also, the
likelihood that individual members of the IMWL Class will prosecute separate actions is remote
due to the extensive time and considerable expense necessary to conduct such litigation,
especially in view of the relatively modest amount of monetary relief at issue for individual
IMWL Class members.
139. Plaintiff’s and IMWL Class members’ work activities were for the direct and
substantial benefit of Defendants, and entitled them to wages, as defined by 820 ILCS 105/3(b).
140. At all times relevant, Plaintiff’s and IMWL Class members’ hourly rate of pay,
taken alone, was less than the minimum $8.25 per hour rate established by the IMWL. 820 ILCS
105/4(a)(1).
141. The amount of “Cash Tips” stated on Plaintiff’s and IMWL Class members’
Paystubs accurately reflected the amount of tips that were bestowed upon Plaintiff and IMWL
Class members by Defendants’ customers during their respective shifts.
40
142. However, the Take Home Cash that was given to Plaintiff and IMWL Class
members was less than the amount of tips that were bestowed upon Plaintiff and IMWL Class
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
members by Defendants’ customers during their respective shifts (and less than the amount of
“Cash Tips” that was accurately stated on Plaintiff’s and IMWL Class members’ Paystubs).
143. Plaintiff and IMWL Class members did not receive any additional payments in
connection with the tips that were bestowed upon them by Defendants’ customers other than the
Take Home Cash they were given by Defendants.
144. Plaintiff and IMWL Class members were not given and allowed to keep all of the
tips that were bestowed upon them by Defendants’ customers by Defendants’ customers.
Plaintiff and IMWL Class members by Defendants’ customers over and above what Plaintiff and
IMWL Class members were given in Take Home Cash.
145. As such, Defendants cannot claim a tip credit with respect to Plaintiff and IMWL
Class members (820 ILCS 105/4(c)), and Plaintiff and IMWL Class members were compensated
at a rate less than the minimum wage established by the IMWL (820 ILCS 105/4(a)(1)).
146. Moreover, Defendants unlawfully retained a portion of the tips that were
bestowed upon Plaintiff and IMWL Class members. 820 ILCS 105/3(b).
147. Plaintiff and IMWL Class members have been harmed as a direct and proximate
result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct because they have been deprived of compensation at a
rate not less the minimum wage established by the IMWL, as well as the full amount of tips
bestowed upon them by Defendants’ customers.
148. Defendants knew of the IMWL requirements described herein.
149. Defendants’ violations of the IMWL requirements described herein were willful.
41
150. Pursuant to 820 ILCS 105/12(a), Plaintiff and IMWL Class members are entitled
to: (1) compensation for all of the hours that they worked for Defendants’ benefit in an amount
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
equal to the difference between IMWL’s established minimum wage and Plaintiff’s and IMWL
Class members’ hourly rate of compensation, irrespective of tip income; (2) compensation in an
amount equal to the amount of tips bestowed upon Plaintiff and IMWL Class members by
Defendants’ customers that Defendants retained; and (3) damages in an amount equal to 2% of
the amount of all such unpaid compensation for each month following the date of payment
during which such underpayments remain unpaid.
151. Plaintiff and IMWL Class members are also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees
and costs, pursuant to 820 ILCS 105/12(a).
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of the IMWL Class, prays for an
Order as follows:

Class Action, as set forth by 735 ILCS 5/2-801, and certifying the IMWL
Class defined herein;
B. Designating Plaintiff as representative of the IMWL Class and his

undersigned counsel as IMWL Class Counsel;
C. Entering judgment in favor of Plaintiff and the IMWL Class and against
Defendants;
D. Awarding Plaintiff and the IMWL Class all unpaid compensation to which
they are entitled;
E. Awarding Plaintiff and the IMWL Class damages in an amount equal to

2% of the amount of all unpaid compensation for each month following
the date of payment during which such underpayments remain unpaid;
F. Awarding Plaintiff and the IMWL Class reasonable attorneys’ fees and
costs; and
42
appropriate.
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
COUNT III
Violation of the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance
(Chi. Mun. Code §§ 1-24-010, et seq.)
(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Chicago Ordinance Class)
153. Plaintiff brings this Count as a Class Action on behalf of himself and the Chicago
Ordinance Class of similarly situation employees, pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-801.
154. Chicago Ordinance Class Definition: Plaintiff pursues the requested relief on
behalf of the following Chicago Ordinance Class:
hourly rate of pay, irrespective of tips, that was less than the applicable minimum
wage established by the section of the Chicago Ordinance pertaining to
employees who do not customarily receive tips, and (3) received, on or after July
1, 2015, a Paystub which stated that they were given a greater amount in “Cash
Tips” than they actually received in Take Home Cash.
Excluded from the Chicago Ordinance Class are: (1) Defendants, Defendants’ agents,
subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which Defendants or their
parents have a controlling interest, and those entities’ current and former employees, officers,
and directors; (2) the Judge to whom this case is assigned and the Judge’s immediate family; (3)
any person who executes and files a timely request for exclusion from the Chicago Ordinance
Class; (4) any persons who have had their claims in this matter finally adjudicated and/or
otherwise released; and (5) the legal representatives, successors and assigns of any such excluded
person. Plaintiff hereby reserves the right to amend the above class definition based on
discovery and the proofs at trial.
155. Numerosity. The Chicago Ordinance Class is so numerous that joinder of all
members is impracticable. Plaintiff estimates that the Chicago Ordinance Class, including both
current and former employees over the time period relevant to this action, will include hundreds
43
of members. This is based on the fact that Defendants operated approximately twenty (20) bars
and restaurants during the time period applicable to this action, and each bar and restaurant
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
employed about fifty (50) Servers at any given time. The precise number of Chicago Ordinance
Class members should be readily available from Defendants’ personnel, scheduling, time, and
payroll records maintained in accordance with 29 U.S.C. § 211(c).
the Chicago Ordinance Class, which predominate over any questions affecting only individual
members including, inter alia, the following:
a. Whether Plaintiff’s and Chicago Ordinance Class members’ Paystubs

accurately reflected the amount of tips that Defendants’ customers
bestowed upon Plaintiff and Chicago Ordinance Class members;
b. Whether Plaintiff and Chicago Ordinance Class members were given Take
Home Cash to account for what they believed, and accurately reported, to
be the amount of tips that Defendants’ customers bestowed upon Plaintiff
and Chicago Ordinance Class members during a given shift;
c. Whether Plaintiff and Chicago Ordinance Class members were given any
additional amounts, other than their Take Home Cash, to account for the
Chicago Ordinance Class members during a given shift;
d. Whether Plaintiff and Chicago Ordinance Class members were given and
allowed to keep all of the tips that Defendants’ customers bestowed upon
Plaintiff and Chicago Ordinance Class members;

Defendants’ customers bestowed upon Plaintiff and Chicago Ordinance
Class members over and above what Plaintiff and Chicago Ordinance
Class members were given in Take Home Cash;
f. Whether Defendants were entitled to avail themselves of the lesser

minimum wage for tipped employees under the Chicago Ordinance
relative to the hourly rate of compensation paid to Plaintiff and Chicago
Ordinance Class members;
44
g. Whether Plaintiff and Chicago Ordinance Class members were
compensated at an hourly rate of pay that was less than the applicable
minimum per hour rate established by the Chicago Ordinance;
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
h. Whether Plaintiff and the members of the Chicago Ordinance Class have
sustained damages and, if so, what is the proper measure of their damages;
and
i. Whether Plaintiff and the members of the Chicago Ordinance Class are
entitled to the relief sought, including attorney’s fees.
157. Adequacy. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Chicago
Ordinance Class. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned class counsel, who are competent and
experienced in the prosecution of complex and class action litigation. The interests of Plaintiff
are aligned with, and not antagonistic to, those of the Chicago Ordinance Class.
predominate over questions affecting only individual members of the Chicago Ordinance Class.
Also, the likelihood that individual members of the Chicago Ordinance Class will prosecute
separate actions is remote due to the extensive time and considerable expense necessary to
conduct such litigation, especially in view of the relatively modest amount of monetary relief at
issue for individual Chicago Ordinance Class members.
159. Plaintiff’s and Chicago Ordinance Class members’ work activities were for the
direct and substantial benefit of Defendants, and were performed while physically present within
the geographic boundaries of the City of Chicago, Illinois. As such, Plaintiff and Chicago
Ordinance Class members are “Covered Employees” as defined by Chi. Mun. Code § 1-24-010.
45
160. At all times relevant, Plaintiff’s and Chicago Ordinance Class members’ hourly
rate of pay, taken alone, was less than the prevailing minimum per hour rate established by the
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
Chicago Ordinance relative to employees who do not receive tips. Chi. Mun. Code § 1-24-020.
161. The amount of “Cash Tips” stated on Plaintiff’s and Chicago Ordinance Class
members’ Paystubs accurately reflected the amount of tips that were bestowed upon Plaintiff and
Chicago Ordinance Class members by Defendants’ customers during their respective shifts.
162. However, the Take Home Cash that was given to Plaintiff and Chicago Ordinance
Class members was less than the amount of tips that were bestowed upon Plaintiff and Chicago
Ordinance Class members by Defendants’ customers during their respective shifts (and less than
the amount of “Cash Tips” that was accurately stated on Plaintiff’s and Chicago Ordinance Class
members’ Paystubs).
163. Plaintiff and Chicago Ordinance Class members did not receive any additional
payments in connection with the tips that were bestowed upon them by Defendants’ customers
other than the Take Home Cash they were given by Defendants.
164. Plaintiff and Chicago Ordinance Class members were not given and allowed to
keep all of the tips that were bestowed upon them by Defendants’ customers by Defendants’
customers. Instead, Defendants uniformly retained the additional amounts in tips that were
bestowed upon Plaintiff and Chicago Ordinance Class members by Defendants’ customers over
and above what Plaintiff and Chicago Ordinance Class members were given in Take Home Cash.
165. As such, Defendants cannot avail themselves of the lesser minimum wage for
tipped employees under the Chicago Ordinance relative to the hourly rate of compensation paid
to Plaintiff and Chicago Ordinance Class members (Chi. Mun. Code § 1-24-030), and Plaintiff
46
and Chicago Ordinance Class members were compensated at a rate less than the applicable
minimum wage established by the Chicago Ordinance (Chi. Mun. Code § 1-24-020).
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
166. Moreover, Defendants unlawfully retained a portion of the tips that Defendants’
customers bestowed upon Plaintiff and Chicago Ordinance Class members. Chi. Mun. Code § 1-
24-010.
167. Plaintiff and Chicago Ordinance Class members have been harmed as a direct and
proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct because they have been deprived of
compensation at a rate not less the minimum wage established by the Chicago Ordinance, as well
as the full amount of tips bestowed upon them by Defendants’ customers.
168. Defendants knew of the Chicago Ordinance requirements described herein.
169. Defendants’ violations of the Chicago Ordinance requirements described herein
were willful.
170. Pursuant to Chi. Mun. Code § 1-24-110, Plaintiff and Chicago Ordinance Class
members are entitled to recover three times the amount of compensation owed for all of the
hours that they worked for Defendants’ benefit in an amount equal to the difference between
Chicago Ordinance’s established minimum wage for employees who do not receive tips and
Plaintiff’s and Chicago Ordinance Class members’ hourly rate of compensation, irrespective of
tip income, plus the amount of tips bestowed upon Plaintiff and Chicago Ordinance Class
members by Defendants’ customers that Defendants retained.
171. Plaintiff and Chicago Ordinance Class members are also entitled to reasonable
attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to Chi. Mun. Code § 1-24-110.
47
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of the Chicago Ordinance Class,
prays for an Order as follows:

FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060

Class Action, as set forth by 735 ILCS 5/2-801, and certifying the Chicago
Ordinance Class defined herein;
B. Designating Plaintiff as representative of the Chicago Ordinance Class and

his undersigned counsel as Chicago Ordinance Class Counsel;
C. Entering judgment in favor of Plaintiff and the Chicago Ordinance Class

and against Defendants;
D. Awarding Plaintiff and the Chicago Ordinance Class an amount equal to

three times the amount of all unpaid compensation to which they are
entitled;
E. Awarding Plaintiff and the Chicago Ordinance Class reasonable attorneys’

fees and costs; and
F. Granting all such further and other relief as the Court deems just and
appropriate.
COUNT IV
Violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act
(820 ILCS 115/1, et seq.)
(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the IWPCA Class)
173. Plaintiff brings this Count as a Class Action on behalf of himself and the IWPCA
174. IWPCA Class Definition: Plaintiff pursues the requested relief on behalf of the
following IWPCA Class:
48
hourly rate of pay, irrespective of tips, that was less than the applicable minimum
wage, and (3) received, on or after July 19, 2008, a Paystub which stated that they
were given a greater amount in “Cash Tips” than they actually received in Take
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
Home Cash.
Excluded from the IWPCA Class are: (1) Defendants, Defendants’ agents, subsidiaries, parents,
and files a timely request for exclusion from the IWPCA Class; (4) any persons who have had
their claims in this matter finally adjudicated and/or otherwise released; and (5) the legal
175. Numerosity. The IWPCA Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable. Plaintiff estimates that the IWPCA Class, including both current and former
(50) Servers at any given time. The precise number of IWPCA Class members should be readily
the IWPCA Class, which predominate over any questions affecting only individual members
a. Whether Plaintiff’s and IWPCA Class members’ Paystubs accurately

Plaintiff and IWPCA Class members;
b. Whether Plaintiff and IWPCA Class members were given Take Home
Cash to account for what they believed, and accurately reported, to be the
IWPCA Class members during a given shift;
49
c. Whether Plaintiff and IWPCA Class members were given any additional
amounts, other than their Take Home Cash, to account for the amount of
tips that Defendants’ customers bestowed upon Plaintiff and IWPCA Class
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
members during a given shift;
d. Whether Plaintiff and IWPCA Class members were given and allowed to
keep all of the tips that Defendants’ customers bestowed upon Plaintiff
and IWPCA Class members;

Defendants’ customers bestowed upon Plaintiff and IWPCA Class
members over and above what Plaintiff and IWPCA Class members were
given in Take Home Cash;
f. Whether Defendants were entitled to avail themselves of a tip credit

relative to the hourly rate of compensation paid to Plaintiff and IWPCA
Class members;
g. Whether Defendants agreed to compensate Plaintiff and IWPCA Class

members at an hourly rate that complied with the applicable minimum
wage, and to allow Plaintiff and IWPCA Class members to retain all tips
bestowed upon Plaintiff and IWPCA Class members by Defendants’
customers;
h. Whether Plaintiff and IWPCA Class members were compensated at an

hourly rate of pay that was less than the hourly rate agreed upon between
Plaintiff and IWPCA Class members;
i. Whether Plaintiff and the members of the IWPCA Class have sustained
j. Whether Plaintiff and the members of the IWPCA Class are entitled to the
177. Adequacy. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the IWPCA
and not antagonistic to, those of the IWPCA Class.
50
predominate over questions affecting only individual members of the IWPCA Class. Also, the
likelihood that individual members of the IWPCA Class will prosecute separate actions is remote
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
IWPCA Class members.
179. Plaintiff’s and IWPCA Class members’ work activities were for the direct and
substantial benefit of Defendants, and entitled them to wages, as defined by 820 ILCS 115/2.
180. Defendants agreed to compensate Plaintiff and IWPCA Class members at an
hourly rate that complied with the applicable minimum wage, and to allow Plaintiff and IWPCA
Class members to retain all tips bestowed upon Plaintiff and IWPCA Class members by
Defendants’ customers.
181. At all times relevant, Plaintiff’s and IWPCA Class members’ hourly rate of pay,
taken alone, was less than the prevailing minimum per hour rate established by law. 29 U.S.C. §
206(a)(1)(C); 820 ILCS 105/4(a)(1); Chi. Mun. Code § 1-24-020.
182. The amount of “Cash Tips” stated on Plaintiff’s and IWPCA Class members’
Paystubs accurately reflected the amount of tips that were bestowed upon Plaintiff and IWPCA
Class members by Defendants’ customers during their respective shifts.
183. However, the Take Home Cash that was given to Plaintiff and IWPCA Class
members was less than the amount of tips that were bestowed upon Plaintiff and IWPCA Class
members by Defendants’ customers during their respective shifts (and less than the amount of
“Cash Tips” that was accurately stated on Plaintiff’s and IWPCA Class members’ Paystubs).
51
184. Plaintiff and IWPCA Class members did not receive any additional payments in
connection with the tips that were bestowed upon them by Defendants’ customers other than the
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
Take Home Cash they were given by Defendants.
185. Plaintiff and IWPCA Class members were not given and allowed to keep all of
the tips that were bestowed upon them by Defendants’ customers by Defendants’ customers.
Plaintiff and IWPCA Class members by Defendants’ customers over and above what Plaintiff
and IWPCA Class members were given in Take Home Cash.
186. As such, Defendants cannot claim a tip credit with respect to Plaintiff and IWPCA
Class members, and Plaintiff and IWPCA Class members were compensated at a rate less than
the prevailing minimum per hour rate established by law. 29 U.S.C. § 206(a)(1)(C); 820 ILCS
105/4(a)(1); Chi. Mun. Code § 1-24-020.
187. Due to the fact that Plaintiff and IWPCA Class members were compensated at a
rate less than the prevailing minimum per hour rate established by law, and Defendants
unlawfully retained a portion of the tips that Defendants’ customers bestowed upon Plaintiff and
IWPCA Class members, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and IWPCA Class members the full
amount of wages to which they were entitled, as required by the IWPCA. 820 ILCS 115/4.
188. Plaintiff and IWPCA Class members have been harmed as a direct and proximate
result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct because they have been deprived of compensation at a
rate not less the minimum wage established by the IMWL, as well as the full amount of tips
bestowed upon them by Defendants’ customers.
189. Defendants knew of the IWPCA requirements described herein.
190. Defendants’ violations of the IWPCA requirements described herein were willful.
52
191. Pursuant to 820 ILCS 115/14(a), Plaintiff and IWPCA Class members are entitled
to: (1) compensation for all of the hours that they worked for Defendants’ benefit in an amount
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
equal to the difference between applicable minimum wage and Plaintiff’s and IWPCA Class
members’ hourly rate of compensation, irrespective of tip income, that was not paid within 13
days after the bi-weekly pay period in which that compensation was earned, (2) compensation in
an amount equal to the amount of tips bestowed upon Plaintiff and IWPCA Class members by
Defendants’ customers that Defendants retained, that was not paid within 13 days after the bi-
weekly pay period in which that compensation was earned; and (3) damages in an amount equal
to 2% of the amount of all such unpaid compensation for each month following the date of
payment during which such underpayments remain unpaid.
192. Plaintiff and IWPCA Class members are also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees
and costs, pursuant to 820 ILCS 115/14(a).
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of the IWPCA Class, prays for an
Order as follows:

Class Action, as set forth by 735 ILCS 5/2-801, and certifying the IWPCA
B. Designating Plaintiff as representative of the IWPCA Class and his

undersigned counsel as IWPCA Class Counsel;
C. Entering judgment in favor of Plaintiff and the IWPCA Class and against
Defendants;
D. Awarding Plaintiff and the IWPCA Class all unpaid compensation to

which they are entitled;
E. Awarding Plaintiff and the IWPCA Class damages in an amount equal to

2% of the amount of all unpaid compensation for each month following
the date of payment during which such underpayments remain unpaid;
53
F. Awarding Plaintiff and the IWPCA Class reasonable attorneys’ fees and
costs; and
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
appropriate.
COUNT V
Conversion
(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Conversion Class)
194. Plaintiff brings this Count as a Class Action on behalf of himself and the
Conversion Class of similarly situation employees, pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-801.
195. Conversion Class Definition: Plaintiff pursues the requested relief on behalf of
the following Conversion Class:
Servers, or any other position with similar job duties, and (2) received, on or after
July 19, 2013, a Paystub which stated that they were given a greater amount in
“Cash Tips” than they actually received in Take Home Cash.
Excluded from the Conversion Class are: (1) Defendants, Defendants’ agents, subsidiaries,
parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which Defendants or their parents have a
controlling interest, and those entities’ current and former employees, officers, and directors; (2)
the Judge to whom this case is assigned and the Judge’s immediate family; (3) any person who
executes and files a timely request for exclusion from the Conversion Class; (4) any persons who
have had their claims in this matter finally adjudicated and/or otherwise released; and (5) the
legal representatives, successors and assigns of any such excluded person. Plaintiff hereby
reserves the right to amend the above class definition based on discovery and the proofs at trial.
196. Numerosity. The Conversion Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable. Plaintiff estimates that the Conversion Class, including both current and former
54
(50) Servers at any given time. The precise number of Conversion Class members should be
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
in accordance with 29 U.S.C. § 211(c).
the Conversion Class, which predominate over any questions affecting only individual members
a. Whether Plaintiff’s and Conversion Class members’ Paystubs accurately

Plaintiff and Conversion Class members;
b. Whether Plaintiff and Conversion Class members were given Take Home
Cash to account for what they believed, and accurately reported, to be the
Conversion Class members during a given shift;
c. Whether Plaintiff and Conversion Class members were given any

additional amounts, other than their Take Home Cash, to account for the
Conversion Class members during a given shift;
d. Whether Plaintiff and Conversion Class members were given and allowed
to keep all of the tips that Defendants’ customers bestowed upon Plaintiff
and Conversion Class members;

Defendants’ customers bestowed upon Plaintiff and Conversion Class
members over and above what Plaintiff and Conversion Class members
were given in Take Home Cash;
f. Whether Plaintiff and the members of the Conversion Class have sustained
g. Whether Plaintiff and the members of the Conversion Class are entitled to
the relief sought, including attorney’s fees.
198. Adequacy. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the
Conversion Class. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned class counsel, who are competent and
55
are aligned with, and not antagonistic to, those of the Conversion Class.
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
predominate over questions affecting only individual members of the Conversion Class. Also,
the likelihood that individual members of the Conversion Class will prosecute separate actions is
remote due to the extensive time and considerable expense necessary to conduct such litigation,
Conversion Class members.
200. To state a claim for conversion, “a plaintiff must allege (1) the defendant’s
unauthorized and wrongful assumption of control, dominion or ownership over the plaintiff’s
personal property, (2) the plaintiff’s right in the property, (3) the plaintiff’s right to immediate
possession of the property, absolutely and unconditionally, and (4) the plaintiff’s demand for
possession of the property.” E.g., Roderick, 282 Ill.App.3d at 1057.
201. The full amount of tips bestowed upon Plaintiff and Conversion Class members
by Defendants’ customers were in recognition of services provided by Plaintiff and Conversion
Class members, and are Plaintiff’s and Conversion Class members’ property. 29 CFR § 531.52.
202. The tips bestowed upon Plaintiff and Conversion Class members by Defendants’
customers are specific sums of money, and are not debts owed by Defendants to Plaintiff and
Conversion Class members.
203. Plaintiff and Conversion Class members entrusted the tips they received from
Defendants’ customers—i.e., their property—to Defendants, on a temporary basis, with the
56
mutual understanding that the entirety of those tips would be returned in the form of Take Home
Cash after their respective shifts ended.

FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
204. After their respective shifts ended, Plaintiff and Conversion Class members
became immediately entitled to the return of their property—i.e., the entirety of the tips
bestowed upon them by Defendants’ customers—in the form of Take Home Cash.
205. The amount of “Cash Tips” stated on Plaintiff’s and Conversion Class members’
Paystubs accurately reflected the amount of tips that were bestowed upon Plaintiff and
Conversion Class members by Defendants’ customers during their respective shifts.
206. However, the Take Home Cash that was given to Plaintiff and Conversion Class
members was less than the amount of tips that were bestowed upon Plaintiff and Conversion
Class members by Defendants’ customers during their respective shifts (and less than the amount
of “Cash Tips” that was accurately stated on Plaintiff’s and Conversion Class members’
Paystubs).
207. Plaintiff and Conversion Class members did not receive any additional payments
in connection with the tips that were bestowed upon them by Defendants’ customers other than
the Take Home Cash they were given by Defendants.
208. After their respective shifts ended, Plaintiff and Conversion Class members
demanded that Defendants return all of the tips bestowed upon them by Defendants’ customers—
i.e., their property—in the form of Take Home Cash. However, Defendants uniformly retained
the additional amounts in tips bestowed upon Plaintiff and Conversion Class members by
Defendants’ customers over and above what Plaintiff and Conversion Class members were given
in Take Home Cash.
57
209. As such, Defendants unlawfully retained Plaintiff’s and Conversion Class
members’ property—i.e., the tips that were bestowed upon Plaintiff and Conversion Class
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
members by Defendants’ customers but which were not given to Plaintiff and Conversion Class
members in the form of Take Home Cash.
210. Defendants have continued to unlawfully exercise possession over Plaintiff’s and
Conversion Class members’ property. Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of the Conversion
Class, demanded that Defendants return Plaintiff’s and Conversion Class members’ property—
i.e., the tips that Defendants’ customers bestowed upon Plaintiff and Conversion Class members
but which were not given to Plaintiff and Conversion Class members in the form of Take Home
Cash.
211. Plaintiff and Conversion Class members have been harmed as a direct and
proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct because they have been deprived of immediate
and continued possession of their property—i.e., the tips that Defendants’ customers bestowed
upon Plaintiff and Conversion Class members but which were not given to Plaintiff and
Conversion Class members in the form of Take Home Cash.
212. Defendants knew that they were in possession of Plaintiff’s and Conversion Class
members’ property, Plaintiff’s and Conversion Class members’ immediate right to possession of
their property, and Plaintiff’s and Conversion Class members’ demands for the return of their
property. Nevertheless, Defendants have refused to return Plaintiff’s and Conversion Class
members’ property.
213. Accordingly, Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of the Conversion Class, seeks
recovery of the property—i.e., the tips that Defendants’ customers bestowed upon Plaintiff and
58
Conversion Class members but which were not given to Plaintiff and Conversion Class members
in the form of Take Home Cash—that has been unlawfully converted by Defendants.
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of the Conversion Class, prays for

Class Action, as set forth by 735 ILCS 5/2-801, and certifying the
Conversion Class defined herein;
B. Designating Plaintiff as representative of the Conversion Class and his

undersigned counsel as Conversion Class Counsel;
C. Entering judgment in favor of Plaintiff and the Conversion Class and

against Defendants;
D. Commanding Defendants to return Plaintiff’s and Conversion Class

members’ property (i.e., the full amount of tips that were bestowed upon
Plaintiff and Conversion Class members by Defendants’ customers);
E. Awarding Plaintiff and the Conversion Class reasonable attorneys’ fees

and costs; and
appropriate.
COUNT VI
Violation of Section 7434 of the Internal Revenue Code
(26 U.S.C. § 7434)
(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Tax Fraud Class)
(In the Alternative to Counts I through V)
214. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations in Paragraphs 1-67 and 98-107 with
the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein.
215. Plaintiff brings this Count in the alternative to Counts I through V set forth above.
216. Plaintiff brings this Count as a Class Action on behalf of himself and the Tax
Fraud Class of similarly situation employees, pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-801.

59
217. Tax Fraud Class Definition: Plaintiff pursues the requested relief on behalf of
the following Tax Fraud Class:

FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
of limitations period, and (2) received a W-2 from at least one Defendant which
(a) stated that they received a greater amount in wage income from Defendants
and tips bestowed upon them by Defendants’ customers than they actually
received in hourly compensation and Take Home Cash, and (b) was filed by said
Defendant with the United States government on or after July 19, 2012.
Excluded from the Tax Fraud Class are: (1) Defendants, Defendants’ agents, subsidiaries,
executes and files a timely request for exclusion from the Tax Fraud Class; (4) any persons who
218. Numerosity. The Tax Fraud Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable. Plaintiff estimates that the Tax Fraud Class, including both current and former
(50) Servers at any given time. The precise number of Tax Fraud Class members should be
the Tax Fraud Class, which predominate over any questions affecting only individual members
a. Whether Plaintiff’s and Tax Fraud Class members’ Paystubs and W-2s
accurately reflected the amount of Take Home Cash that Plaintiff and Tax
Fraud Class members were given by Defendants in connection with the
60
tips that Defendants’ customers bestowed upon Plaintiff and Tax Fraud
Class members;
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
b. Whether Defendants engaged in fraud by overstating the amount of

compensation Defendants paid to Plaintiff and Tax Fraud Class members
on Plaintiff’s and Tax Fraud Class members’ Paystubs and W-2s;
c. Whether Defendants willfully filed fraudulent W-2s with the United States
government that overstated the amount of compensation Defendants paid
to Plaintiff and Tax Fraud Class members;
d. Whether Plaintiff and the members of the Tax Fraud Class have sustained
e. Whether Plaintiff and the members of the Tax Fraud Class are entitled to
220. Adequacy. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Tax
Fraud Class. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned class counsel, who are competent and
are aligned with, and not antagonistic to, those of the Tax Fraud Class.
predominate over questions affecting only individual members of the Tax Fraud Class. Also, the
likelihood that individual members of the Tax Fraud Class will prosecute separate actions is
especially in view of the relatively modest amount of monetary relief at issue for individual Tax
Fraud Class members.
222. Pursuant to the IRC Statute, “if any person willfully files a fraudulent information
return with respect to payments purported to be made to any other person, such other person may
bring a civil action for damages against the person so filing such return.” 26 U.S.C. § 7434(a).
61
223. As the employers of Plaintiff and Tax Fraud Class members, Defendants issued
W-2s to Plaintiff and Tax Fraud Class members on an annual basis.

FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
224. The particular Defendant that issued a W-2 to Plaintiff and each of the Tax Fraud
Class members depended upon which Defendant was responsible for tax reporting relative to
Plaintiff and each Tax Fraud Class member. Relative to Plaintiff, Defendant Wells Holdings,
LLC d/b/a Benchmark Bar and Grill issued Plaintiff’s W-2s.
225. The W-2s issued to Plaintiff and Tax Fraud Class members by Defendants are
“information returns” as defined by 26 U.S.C. § 7434(f). 26 U.S.C. § 6724(d)(1)(A); 26 CFR §
31.6051-2(a). The W-2s issued to Plaintiff and Tax Fraud Class members by Defendants are also
“payee statements,” as defined by 26 U.S.C. § 6724(d)(2).
226. For purposes of the W-2s issued by Defendants to Plaintiff and Tax Fraud Class
members, the hourly compensation that Defendants paid to Plaintiff and Tax Fraud Class
members, as well as the tips that Defendants’ customers bestowed upon Plaintiff and Tax Fraud
Class members, constituted “wages.” 26 U.S.C. § 3121(a); 26 U.S.C. § 3401(a) & (f).
227. Defendants calculated the “wages” on Plaintiff’s and Tax Fraud Class members’
W-2s using the information on Plaintiff’s and Tax Fraud Class members’ Paystubs from the
applicable calendar year. Put another way, the “wages” reflected on the W-2s that Defendants
issued to Plaintiff and Tax Fraud Class members were derived by adding the amount of hourly
compensation that Plaintiff and Tax Fraud Class members earned during the prior calendar
year—as reflected Plaintiff’s and Tax Fraud Class members’ Paystubs—to the amount of “Cash
Tips” stated on Plaintiff’s and Tax Fraud Class members’ Paystubs from the prior calendar year.
228. However, the “Cash Tips” stated on Plaintiff’s and Tax Fraud Class members’
Paystubs inaccurately reflected the amount of Take Home Cash that Plaintiff and Tax Fraud
62
Class members were given by Defendants in connection with tips bestowed upon Plaintiff and
Tax Fraud Class members by Defendants’ customers during their respective shifts. In actuality,
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
Plaintiff and Tax Fraud Class members received a lesser amount in Take Home Cash in
connection with tips bestowed upon them by Defendants’ customers than the amount of “Cash
Tips” stated on their Paystubs.
229. As such, the W-2s issued by Defendants to Plaintiff and Tax Fraud Class members
overstated the amount of “wages” that Plaintiff and Tax Fraud Class members earned during the
prior calendar year.
230. Defendants filed the W-2s issued that they to Plaintiff and Tax Fraud Class
members with the United States government, as required by 26 CFR § 31.6051-2(a).
231. Defendants knew the information on the W-2s that they issued to Plaintiff and Tax
Fraud Class members was false because Plaintiff and Tax Fraud Class members accurately
declared in Defendants’ POS system the amount of tips bestowed upon them by Defendants’
customers—as required by 26 U.S.C. § 6053(a) and 26 CFR § 31.6053-1(a)—and Defendants
had a duty to keep accurate records relative to the amount of tips declared by Plaintiff and Tax
Fraud Class members in Defendants’ POS system—as required by 26 CFR § 31.6001-1(a).
232. Plaintiff and Tax Fraud Class members reasonably believed that the information
in the W-2s issued by Defendants was accurate, and relied upon that information, because
Defendants had a duty to file correct information returns with the United States government—
pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6721(a)(2)(B) and 26 CFR 301.6721-1—and to furnish Plaintiff and Tax
Fraud Class members with correct payee statements—pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6722(a)(2)(B) and
26 CFR 301.6722-1. Plaintiff and Tax Fraud Class members also reasonably believed that the
information in the W-2s and Paystubs issued by Defendants was accurate, and relied upon that
63
information, because Defendants had a duty to keep accurate records relative to the amount of
tips declared by Plaintiff and Tax Fraud Class members in Defendants’ POS system—pursuant to
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
26 CFR § 31.6001-1(a). Indeed, unlike Defendants, there is no mandatory recordkeeping
requirement imposed on Plaintiff and Tax Fraud Class members. 26 CFR § 31.6001-1(d).
Moreover, “the fact that the [W-2s were] filed for public record amounts to…a guarantee” that
the W-2s were accurate. Lehmann v. Arnold, 137 Ill.App.3d 412, 421 (4th Dist. 1985).
233. For the same reasons, Defendants knew and intended that Plaintiff and Tax Fraud
Class members would rely on the information in the W-2s and Paystubs issued by Defendants.
234. Accordingly, in filing the W-2s issued by Defendants to Plaintiff and Tax Fraud
Class members—which contained incorrect information as to the amount of “wages” Plaintiff
and Tax Fraud Class members earned—Defendants filed fraudulent information returns with the
United States government in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7434(a).
235. The particular Defendant that filed a fraudulent W-2 issued to Plaintiff and each
of the Tax Fraud Class members depended upon which Defendant was responsible for tax
reporting relative to Plaintiff and each Tax Fraud Class member. Relative to Plaintiff, Defendant
Wells Holdings, LLC d/b/a Benchmark Bar and Grill filed the fraudulent W-2s.
236. On information and belief, Defendants’ filing of the fraudulent W-2s that they
issued to Plaintiff and Tax Fraud Class members was part of a willful scheme to shift the burden
of paying taxes to Plaintiff and Tax Fraud Class members so that Defendants could covertly
retain income without paying taxes, or avoid paying the minimum hourly rate of pay under
applicable minimum wage laws.
237. For example, by overstating the amount of tip income that Defendants gave to
Plaintiff and Tax Fraud Class members from Defendants’ gross receipts, Defendants can
64
concomitantly understate the amount of net income Defendants generated after those amounts
are deducted. To demonstrate, if one of Defendants’ customers was charged $100 for a meal, and
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
left an additional $20 as a tip for his/her Server, Defendants’ gross income would be $120, and
Defendants’ net income would be $100 for that customer. However, if Defendants report that the
customer’s Server received a $40 tip from the customer, Defendants can report net income of
$80, while still reporting gross income of $120. In this scenario, the Server would be required to
pay taxes on $40 of income, even though he/she only received $20, whereas Defendants would
only be required to pay taxes on $80 of net income, even though they would have actually
received $100.6
238. As another example, by overstating the amount of money that Defendants gave to
Plaintiff and Tax Fraud Class members, Defendants can ensure that they can always avail
themselves of a tip credit with respect to the compensation paid to Plaintiff and Tax Fraud Class
members, and do not have to pay Plaintiff and Tax Fraud Class members for any shortfall in the
hourly rate of pay. In doing so, Defendants reduce their operating costs, and can therefore retain
a greater portion of their gross income for their own benefit.
239. Although the precise mechanism by which Defendants benefitted from these
practices is unknown, it can be proven through discovery after a review of Defendants’ internal
records and financial statements.
240. Because the amount of “wages” stated on the W-2s issued by Defendants to
Plaintiff and Tax Fraud Class members overstated the amount of “wages” that Plaintiff and Tax
Fraud Class members actually earned during the prior calendar year, Plaintiff and Tax Fraud
Class members were required to pay income tax on income that they did not actually receive.
6
The fact that Four Corners is composed of over 20 different, interconnected entities would also facilitate
Defendants’ concealing the precise amount of net income they received in a calendar year.
65
241. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plaintiff and Tax Fraud Class
members were harmed by Defendants’ conduct described herein because they were required to
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
pay a greater amount in income tax than they otherwise should have been, had their W-2s been
accurate.
242. Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7434(b), Plaintiff and Tax Fraud Class members are each
entitled to the greater of: (1) statutory damages of $5,000; or (2) the sum of their actual damages,
the costs of this action, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of the Tax Fraud Class, prays for an
Order as follows:

Class Action, as set forth by 735 ILCS 5/2-801, and certifying the Tax
Fraud Class defined herein;
B. Designating Plaintiff as representative of the Tax Fraud Class and his

undersigned counsel as Tax Fraud Class Counsel;
C. Entering judgment in favor of Plaintiff and the Tax Fraud Class and
against Defendants;
D. Awarding Plaintiff and the Tax Fraud Class the greater of: (1) statutory
damages of $5,000; or (2) the sum of their actual damages, the costs of
this action, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, as provided for by 26
U.S.C. § 7434(b);
E. Awarding Plaintiff and the Tax Fraud Class reasonable attorneys’ fees and
costs; and
appropriate.
66
COUNT VII
Violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
(18 U.S.C. §§ 1961, et seq.)
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the RICO Class)

245. Plaintiff brings this Count as a Class Action on behalf of himself and the RICO
246. RICO Class Definition: Plaintiff pursues the requested relief on behalf of the
following RICO Class:
Excluded from the RICO Class are: (1) Defendants, Defendants’ agents, subsidiaries, parents,
and files a timely request for exclusion from the RICO Class; (4) any persons who have had their
claims in this matter finally adjudicated and/or otherwise released; and (5) the legal
247. Numerosity. The RICO Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable. Plaintiff estimates that the RICO Class, including both current and former
67
(50) Servers at any given time. The precise number of RICO Class members should be readily
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
the RICO Class, which predominate over any questions affecting only individual members
a. Whether Plaintiff’s and RICO Class members’ Paystubs and W-2s

accurately reflected the amount of Take Home Cash that Plaintiff and
RICO Class members were given by Defendants in connection with the
tips that Defendants’ customers bestowed upon Plaintiff and RICO Class
members;

compensation Defendants paid to Plaintiff and RICO Class members on
Plaintiff’s and RICO Class members’ Paystubs and W-2s;
to Plaintiff and RICO Class members through the mail or by wire
transmission;
d. Whether Defendants are part of an enterprise that engaged in a pattern of

racketeering activity;
e. Whether Plaintiff and the members of the RICO Class have sustained
f. Whether Plaintiff and the members of the RICO Class are entitled to the
249. Adequacy. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the RICO
and not antagonistic to, those of the RICO Class.
68
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
predominate over questions affecting only individual members of the RICO Class. Also, the
likelihood that individual members of the RICO Class will prosecute separate actions is remote
RICO Class members.
251. Pursuant to the RICO statute, “any person injured in his business or property by
reason of a violation of [18 U.S.C. § 1962] may sue therefor…and shall recover threefold the
damages he sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee…” 18 U.S.C.
§ 1964(c).7
252. At all relevant times, 18 U.S.C. § 1962 stated, in pertinent part:
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person who has received any income
derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity…to
use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such income, or the
proceeds of such income, in acquisition of any interest in, or the
establishment or operation of, any enterprise which is engaged in, or the
activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce…
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering

activity…to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in or
control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which
affect, interstate or foreign commerce.
(c) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any
enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign
commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct
of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity…
7
Although 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) states that a person may file suit “in any appropriate United States district
court,” the United States Supreme Court has definitively held that civil RICO claims may also be brought
in state court. Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455, 467 (1990).
69
(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the
provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section.
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
253. 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5) defines “pattern of racketeering activity” as requiring “at
least two acts of racketeering activity, one of which occurred after the effective date of this
chapter and the last of which occurred within ten years…after the commission of a prior act of
racketeering activity.”
254. Relevant here, 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) defines “racketeering activity” as “any act
which is indictable under” 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (mail fraud) or 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud). 18
U.S.C. § 1961(1)(B).
255. At all relevant times, 18 U.S.C. § 1341 made it unlawful for persons to use the
United States mail to defraud persons of money or property.
256. At all relevant times, 18 U.S.C. § 1343 made it unlawful for persons to use the
wires of interstate commerce to defraud persons of money or property.
257. All Defendants, except for the unincorporated Defendant Four Corners, are
“persons,” as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1961(3). Each of these “persons” participated in the
scheme defined herein as part of the “enterprise”—as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4)—known
as Four Corners.
258. As the employers of Plaintiff and RICO Class members, Defendants issued W-2s
to Plaintiff and RICO Class members on an annual basis.
259. The particular Defendant that issued a W-2 to Plaintiff and each of the RICO
Plaintiff and each RICO Class member. Relative to Plaintiff, Defendant Wells Holdings, LLC
d/b/a Benchmark Bar and Grill issued Plaintiff’s W-2s.
70
260. The W-2s issued to Plaintiff and RICO Class members by Defendants are

FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
31.6051-2(a). The W-2s issued to Plaintiff and RICO Class members by Defendants are also
261. For purposes of the W-2s issued by Defendants to Plaintiff and RICO Class
members, the hourly compensation that Defendants paid to Plaintiff and RICO Class members,
as well as the tips that Defendants’ customers bestowed upon Plaintiff and RICO Class members,
constituted “wages.” 26 U.S.C. § 3121(a); 26 U.S.C. § 3401(a) & (f).
262. Defendants calculated the “wages” on Plaintiff’s and RICO Class members’ W-2s
using the information on Plaintiff’s and RICO Class members’ Paystubs from the applicable
calendar year. Put another way, the “wages” reflected on the W-2s that Defendants issued to
Plaintiff and RICO Class members were derived by adding the amount of hourly compensation
that Plaintiff and RICO Class members earned during the prior calendar year—as reflected
Plaintiff’s and RICO Class members’ Paystubs—to the amount of “Cash Tips” stated on
Plaintiff’s and RICO Class members’ Paystubs from the prior calendar year.
263. However, the “Cash Tips” stated on Plaintiff’s and RICO Class members’
Paystubs inaccurately reflected the amount of Take Home Cash that Plaintiff and RICO Class
members were given by Defendants in connection with tips bestowed upon Plaintiff and RICO
Class members by Defendants’ customers during their respective shifts. In actuality, Plaintiff
and RICO Class members received a lesser amount in Take Home Cash in connection with tips
bestowed upon them by Defendants’ customers than the amount of “Cash Tips” stated on their
Paystubs.
71
264. As such, the W-2s issued by Defendants to Plaintiff and RICO Class members
overstated the amount of “wages” that Plaintiff and RICO Class members earned during the prior
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
calendar year.
265. Defendants filed the W-2s that they issued to Plaintiff and RICO Class members
with the United States government, as required by 26 CFR § 31.6051-2(a). Defendants (1) sent
the W-2s issued to Plaintiff and RICO Class members to the United States government by using
the United States mail, or a private or commercial interstate carrier, and/or (2) electronically
transmitted the W-2s that they issued to Plaintiff and RICO Class members to the United States
government through wire transmissions in interstate commerce.
266. Defendants knew the information on the W-2s that they issued to Plaintiff and
RICO Class members was false because Plaintiff and RICO Class members accurately declared
in Defendants’ POS system the amount of tips bestowed upon them by Defendants’ customers—
as required by 26 U.S.C. § 6053(a) and 26 CFR § 31.6053-1(a)—and Defendants had a duty to
keep accurate records relative to the amount of tips declared by Plaintiff and RICO Class
members in Defendants’ POS system—as required by 26 CFR § 31.6001-1(a).
267. Plaintiff and RICO Class members reasonably believed that the information in the
W-2s issued by Defendants was accurate, and relied upon that information, because Defendants
had a duty to file correct information returns with the United States government—pursuant to 26
U.S.C. § 6721(a)(2)(B) and 26 CFR 301.6721-1—and to furnish Plaintiff and RICO Class
members with correct payee statements—pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6722(a)(2)(B) and 26 CFR
301.6722-1. Plaintiff and RICO Class members also reasonably believed that the information in
the W-2s and Paystubs issued by Defendants was accurate, and relied upon that information,
because Defendants had a duty to keep accurate records relative to the amount of tips declared by
72
Plaintiff and RICO Class members in Defendants’ POS system—pursuant to 26 CFR § 31.6001-
1(a). Indeed, unlike Defendants, there is no mandatory recordkeeping requirement imposed on

FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
Plaintiff and RICO Class members. 26 CFR § 31.6001-1(d). Moreover, “the fact that the [W-2s
were] filed for public record amounts to…a guarantee” that the W-2s were accurate. Lehmann,
137 Ill.App.3d at 421.
268. For the same reasons, Defendants knew and intended that Plaintiff and RICO
269. Accordingly, in filing the W-2s issued by Defendants to Plaintiff and RICO Class
members—which contained incorrect information as to the amount of “wages” Plaintiff and
RICO Class members earned—Defendants filed fraudulent information returns with the United
States government through the mail or by wire transmission.
of the RICO Class members depended upon which Defendant was responsible for tax reporting
relative to Plaintiff and each RICO Class member. Relative to Plaintiff, Defendant Wells
Holdings, LLC d/b/a Benchmark Bar and Grill filed the fraudulent W-2s with the United States
government through the mail or by wire transmission.
issued to Plaintiff and RICO Class members was part of a willful scheme to shift the burden of
paying taxes to Plaintiff and RICO Class members so that Defendants could covertly retain
income without paying taxes, or avoid paying the minimum hourly rate of pay under applicable
minimum wage laws.
Plaintiff and RICO Class members from Defendants’ gross receipts, Defendants can
73
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
received $100.8
Plaintiff and RICO Class members, Defendants can ensure that they can always avail themselves
of a tip credit with respect to the compensation paid to Plaintiff and RICO Class members, and
do not have to pay Plaintiff and RICO Class members for any shortfall in the hourly rate of pay.
In doing so, Defendants reduce their operating costs, and can therefore retain a greater portion of
their gross income for their own benefit.
275. In light of the foregoing, Defendants committed mail fraud as defined in 18
U.S.C. § 1341 and/or wire fraud as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1343 by engaging in a scheme to file
fraudulent W-2s issued by Defendants to Plaintiff and RICO Class members with the United
States government through the mail or by wire transmission in order to covertly retain income
8
74
without paying taxes, or avoid paying the minimum hourly rate of pay under applicable
minimum wage laws.

FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
276. Defendants plotted and conspired to work together to defraud Plaintiff and RICO
Class members (and potentially the United States government), and used the money illegally
obtained in their scheme to continue their businesses and operations.
Plaintiff and RICO Class members overstated the amount of “wages” that Plaintiff and RICO
Class members actually earned during the prior calendar year, Plaintiff and RICO Class members
were required to pay income tax on income that they did not actually receive.
278. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plaintiff and RICO Class
accurate.
279. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), Plaintiff and RICO Class members are entitled
to three times the damages they sustained as a result of Defendants’ illegal conduct described
herein.
280. Plaintiff and RICO Class members are also entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees
and costs, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of the RICO Class, prays for an
Order as follows:

Class Action, as set forth by 735 ILCS 5/2-801, and certifying the RICO
75
B. Designating Plaintiff as representative of the RICO Class and his
undersigned counsel as RICO Class Counsel;
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
C. Entering judgment in favor of Plaintiff and the RICO Class and against
Defendants;
D. Awarding Plaintiff and the RICO Class an amount equal to three times the
damages they sustained as a result of Defendants’ illegal conduct;
E. Awarding Plaintiff and the RICO Class reasonable attorneys’ fees and
costs; and
appropriate.
COUNT VIII
Civil Conspiracy
(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Conspiracy Class)
Conspiracy Class of similarly situation employees, pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-801.
284. Conspiracy Class Definition: Plaintiff pursues the requested relief on behalf of
the following Conspiracy Class:
76
Excluded from the Conspiracy Class are: (1) Defendants, Defendants’ agents, subsidiaries,
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
executes and files a timely request for exclusion from the Conspiracy Class; (4) any persons who
285. Numerosity. The Conspiracy Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable. Plaintiff estimates that the Conspiracy Class, including both current and former
(50) Servers at any given time. The precise number of Conspiracy Class members should be
the Conspiracy Class, which predominate over any questions affecting only individual members
a. Whether Plaintiff’s and Conspiracy Class members’ Paystubs and W-2s

Conspiracy Class members were given by Defendants in connection with
the tips that Defendants’ customers bestowed upon Plaintiff and
Conspiracy Class members;

compensation Defendants paid to Plaintiff and Conspiracy Class members
on Plaintiff’s and Conspiracy Class members’ Paystubs and W-2s;
to Plaintiff and Conspiracy Class members;
77
d. Whether Defendants conspired to covertly retain income without paying
taxes, or avoid paying the minimum hourly rate of pay under applicable
minimum wage laws;
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
e. Whether Plaintiff and the members of the Conspiracy Class have sustained
f. Whether Plaintiff and the members of the Conspiracy Class are entitled to
Conspiracy Class. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned class counsel, who are competent and
are aligned with, and not antagonistic to, those of the Conspiracy Class.
predominate over questions affecting only individual members of the Conspiracy Class. Also,
the likelihood that individual members of the Conspiracy Class will prosecute separate actions is
Conspiracy Class members.
289. “The elements of a civil conspiracy are: (1) a combination of two or more
persons, (2) for the purpose of accomplishing by some concerted action either an unlawful
purpose or a lawful purpose by unlawful means, (3) in the furtherance of which one of the
conspirators committed an overt tortious or unlawful act.” E.g., Fritz v. Johnston, 209 Ill.2d 302,
317 (2004).
78
290. As the employers of Plaintiff and Conspiracy Class members, Defendants issued
W-2s to Plaintiff and Conspiracy Class members on an annual basis.

FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
291. The particular Defendant that issued a W-2 to Plaintiff and each of the Conspiracy
Plaintiff and each Conspiracy Class member. Relative to Plaintiff, Defendant Wells Holdings,
LLC d/b/a Benchmark Bar and Grill issued Plaintiff’s W-2s.
292. The W-2s issued to Plaintiff and Conspiracy Class members by Defendants are
31.6051-2(a). The W-2s issued to Plaintiff and Conspiracy Class members by Defendants are
also “payee statements,” as defined by 26 U.S.C. § 6724(d)(2).
293. For purposes of the W-2s issued by Defendants to Plaintiff and Conspiracy Class
members, the hourly compensation that Defendants paid to Plaintiff and Conspiracy Class
members, as well as the tips that Defendants’ customers bestowed upon Plaintiff and Conspiracy
Class members, constituted “wages.” 26 U.S.C. § 3121(a); 26 U.S.C. § 3401(a) & (f).
294. Defendants calculated the “wages” on Plaintiff’s and Conspiracy Class members’
W-2s using the information on Plaintiff’s and Conspiracy Class members’ Paystubs from the
applicable calendar year. Put another way, the “wages” reflected on the W-2s that Defendants
issued to Plaintiff and Conspiracy Class members were derived by adding the amount of hourly
compensation that Plaintiff and Conspiracy Class members earned during the prior calendar
year—as reflected Plaintiff’s and Conspiracy Class members’ Paystubs—to the amount of “Cash
Tips” stated on Plaintiff’s and Conspiracy Class members’ Paystubs from the prior calendar year.
295. However, the “Cash Tips” stated on Plaintiff’s and Conspiracy Class members’
Paystubs inaccurately reflected the amount of Take Home Cash that Plaintiff and Conspiracy
79
Class members were given by Defendants in connection with tips bestowed upon Plaintiff and
Conspiracy Class members by Defendants’ customers during their respective shifts. In actuality,
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
Plaintiff and Conspiracy Class members received a lesser amount in Take Home Cash in
connection with tips bestowed upon them by Defendants’ customers than the amount of “Cash
Tips” stated on their Paystubs.
296. As such, the W-2s issued by Defendants to Plaintiff and Conspiracy Class
members overstated the amount of “wages” that Plaintiff and Conspiracy Class members earned
during the prior calendar year.
297. Defendants filed the W-2s that they issued to Plaintiff and Conspiracy Class
members with the United States government, as required by 26 CFR § 31.6051-2(a).
Conspiracy Class members was false because Plaintiff and Conspiracy Class members accurately
declared in Defendants’ POS system the amount of tips bestowed upon them by Defendants’
customers—as required by 26 U.S.C. § 6053(a) and 26 CFR § 31.6053-1(a)—and Defendants
had a duty to keep accurate records relative to the amount of tips declared by Plaintiff and
Conspiracy Class members in Defendants’ POS system—as required by 26 CFR § 31.6001-1(a).
299. Plaintiff and Conspiracy Class members reasonably believed that the information
in the W-2s issued by Defendants was accurate, and relied upon that information, because
Defendants had a duty to file correct information returns with the United States government—
pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6721(a)(2)(B) and 26 CFR 301.6721-1—and to furnish Plaintiff and
Conspiracy Class members with correct payee statements—pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §
6722(a)(2)(B) and 26 CFR 301.6722-1. Plaintiff and Conspiracy Class members also reasonably
believed that the information in the W-2s and Paystubs issued by Defendants was accurate, and
80
relied upon that information, because Defendants had a duty to keep accurate records relative to
the amount of tips declared by Plaintiff and Conspiracy Class members in Defendants’ POS
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
system—pursuant to 26 CFR § 31.6001-1(a). Indeed, unlike Defendants, there is no mandatory
recordkeeping requirement imposed on Plaintiff and Conspiracy Class members. 26 CFR §
31.6001-1(d). Moreover, “the fact that the [W-2s were] filed for public record amounts to…a
guarantee” that the W-2s were accurate. Lehmann, 137 Ill.App.3d at 421.
300. For the same reasons, Defendants knew and intended that Plaintiff and
Conspiracy Class members would rely on the information in the W-2s and Paystubs issued by
Defendants.
301. Accordingly, in filing the W-2s issued by Defendants to Plaintiff and Conspiracy
Class members—which contained incorrect information as to the amount of “wages” Plaintiff
and Conspiracy Class members earned—Defendants filed fraudulent information returns with the
United States government in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7434(a).
of the Conspiracy Class members depended upon which Defendant was responsible for tax
reporting relative to Plaintiff and each Conspiracy Class member. Relative to Plaintiff,
Defendant Wells Holdings, LLC d/b/a Benchmark Bar and Grill filed the fraudulent W-2s with
the United States government.
303. On information and belief, Defendants’ filing of the fraudulent W-2s issued to
Plaintiff and Conspiracy Class members was part of a willful scheme to shift the burden of
paying taxes to Plaintiff and Conspiracy Class members so that Defendants could covertly retain
minimum wage laws.
81
Plaintiff and Conspiracy Class members from Defendants’ gross receipts, Defendants can
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
received $100.9
Plaintiff and Conspiracy Class members, Defendants can ensure that they can always avail
themselves of a tip credit with respect to the compensation paid to Plaintiff and Conspiracy Class
members, and do not have to pay Plaintiff and Conspiracy Class members for any shortfall in the
hourly rate of pay. In doing so, Defendants reduce their operating costs, and can therefore retain
a greater portion of their gross income for their own benefit.
9
82
307. Defendants plotted and conspired to work together to defraud Plaintiff and
Conspiracy Class members (and potentially the United States government), and used the money
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
illegally obtained in their scheme to continue their businesses and operations.
Plaintiff and Conspiracy Class members overstated the amount of “wages” that Plaintiff and
Conspiracy Class members actually earned during the prior calendar year, Plaintiff and
Conspiracy Class members were required to pay income tax on income that they did not actually
receive.
309. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plaintiff and Conspiracy Class
accurate.
310. Accordingly, Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of the Conspiracy Class, seeks
damages arising from Defendants’ conduct described herein.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of the Conspiracy Class, prays for

Conspiracy Class defined herein;
B. Designating Plaintiff as representative of the Conspiracy Class and his

undersigned counsel as Conspiracy Class Counsel;
C. Entering judgment in favor of Plaintiff and the Conspiracy Class and

against Defendants;
D. Awarding Plaintiff and the Conspiracy Class an amount equal to the

damages they sustained as a result of Defendants’ illegal conduct;
83
E. Awarding Plaintiff and the Conspiracy Class reasonable attorneys’ fees
and costs; and
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
appropriate.
COUNT IX
Fraud
(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Fraud Class)
313. Plaintiff brings this Count as a Class Action on behalf of himself and the Fraud
314. Fraud Class Definition: Plaintiff pursues the requested relief on behalf of the
following Fraud Class:
Excluded from the Fraud Class are: (1) Defendants, Defendants’ agents, subsidiaries, parents,
and files a timely request for exclusion from the Fraud Class; (4) any persons who have had their
claims in this matter finally adjudicated and/or otherwise released; and (5) the legal
84
315. Numerosity. The Fraud Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable. Plaintiff estimates that the Fraud Class, including both current and former
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
(50) Servers at any given time. The precise number of Fraud Class members should be readily
the Fraud Class, which predominate over any questions affecting only individual members
a. Whether Plaintiff’s and Fraud Class members’ Paystubs and W-2s

Fraud Class members were given by Defendants in connection with the
tips that Defendants’ customers bestowed upon Plaintiff and Fraud Class
members;
b. Whether Defendants knew that the amounts stated on Plaintiff’s and Fraud
Class members’ Paystubs and W-2s inaccurately reflected the amount of
compensation Defendants paid to Plaintiff and Fraud Class members;
c. Whether Defendants knew and intended that Plaintiff and Fraud Class
members would rely on the amounts stated on Plaintiff’s and Fraud Class
members’ Paystubs and W-2s;
d. Whether Plaintiff and Fraud Class members relied on the amounts stated
on Plaintiff’s and Fraud Class members’ Paystubs and W-2s;
e. Whether Plaintiff and the members of the Fraud Class have sustained
f. Whether Plaintiff and the members of the Fraud Class are entitled to the
85
317. Adequacy. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Fraud
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
and not antagonistic to, those of the Fraud Class.
predominate over questions affecting only individual members of the Fraud Class. Also, the
likelihood that individual members of the Fraud Class will prosecute separate actions is remote
Fraud Class members.
319. “The elements of common law fraud are: (1) a false statement of material fact; (2)
defendant’s knowledge that the statement was false; (3) defendant’s intent that the statement
induce the plaintiff to act; (4) plaintiff’s reliance upon the truth of the statement; and (5)
plaintiff’s damages resulting from reliance on the statement.” E.g., Connick v. Suzuki Motor Co.,
Ltd., 174 Ill.2d 482, 496 (1996).
320. As the employers of Plaintiff and Fraud Class members, Defendants issued W-2s
to Plaintiff and Fraud Class members on an annual basis.
321. The particular Defendant that issued a W-2 to Plaintiff and each of the Fraud
Plaintiff and each Fraud Class member. Relative to Plaintiff, Defendant Wells Holdings, LLC
d/b/a Benchmark Bar and Grill issued Plaintiff’s W-2s.
86
322. The W-2s issued to Plaintiff and Fraud Class members by Defendants are

FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
31.6051-2(a). The W-2s issued to Plaintiff and Fraud Class members by Defendants are also
323. For purposes of the W-2s issued by Defendants to Plaintiff and Fraud Class
members, the hourly compensation that Defendants paid to Plaintiff and Fraud Class members,
as well as the tips that Defendants’ customers bestowed upon Plaintiff and Fraud Class members,
constituted “wages.” 26 U.S.C. § 3121(a); 26 U.S.C. § 3401(a) & (f).
324. Defendants calculated the “wages” on Plaintiff’s and Fraud Class members’ W-2s
using the information on Plaintiff’s and Fraud Class members’ Paystubs from the applicable
calendar year. Put another way, the “wages” reflected on the W-2s that Defendants issued to
Plaintiff and Fraud Class members were derived by adding the amount of hourly compensation
that Plaintiff and Fraud Class members earned during the prior calendar year—as reflected
Plaintiff’s and Fraud Class members’ Paystubs—to the amount of “Cash Tips” stated on
Plaintiff’s and Fraud Class members’ Paystubs from the prior calendar year.
325. However, the “Cash Tips” stated on Plaintiff’s and Fraud Class members’
Paystubs inaccurately reflected the amount of Take Home Cash that Plaintiff and Fraud Class
members were given by Defendants in connection with tips bestowed upon Plaintiff and Fraud
Class members by Defendants’ customers during their respective shifts. In actuality, Plaintiff
and Fraud Class members received a lesser amount in Take Home Cash in connection with tips
bestowed upon them by Defendants’ customers than the amount of “Cash Tips” stated on their
Paystubs.
87
326. As such, the W-2s issued by Defendants to Plaintiff and Fraud Class members
overstated the amount of “wages” that Plaintiff and Fraud Class members earned during the prior
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
calendar year.
327. Defendants filed the W-2s that they issued to Plaintiff and Fraud Class members
with the United States government, as required by 26 CFR § 31.6051-2(a).
Fraud Class members was false because Plaintiff and Fraud Class members accurately declared
in Defendants’ POS system the amount of tips bestowed upon them by Defendants’ customers—
as required by 26 U.S.C. § 6053(a) and 26 CFR § 31.6053-1(a)—and Defendants had a duty to
keep accurate records relative to the amount of tips declared by Plaintiff and Fraud Class
329. Plaintiff and Fraud Class members reasonably believed that the information in the
W-2s issued by Defendants was accurate, and relied upon that information, because Defendants
had a duty to file correct information returns with the United States government—pursuant to 26
U.S.C. § 6721(a)(2)(B) and 26 CFR 301.6721-1—and to furnish Plaintiff and Fraud Class
members with correct payee statements—pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6722(a)(2)(B) and 26 CFR
301.6722-1. Plaintiff and Fraud Class members also reasonably believed that the information in
the W-2s and Paystubs issued by Defendants was accurate, and relied upon that information,
because Defendants had a duty to keep accurate records relative to the amount of tips declared by
Plaintiff and Fraud Class members in Defendants’ POS system—pursuant to 26 CFR § 31.6001-
1(a). Indeed, unlike Defendants, there is no mandatory recordkeeping requirement imposed on
Plaintiff and Fraud Class members. 26 CFR § 31.6001-1(d). Moreover, “the fact that the [W-2s
88
were] filed for public record amounts to…a guarantee” that the W-2s were accurate. Lehmann,
137 Ill.App.3d at 421.

FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
330. For the same reasons, Defendants knew and intended that Plaintiff and Fraud
331. Accordingly, in filing the W-2s issued by Defendants to Plaintiff and Fraud Class
members—which contained incorrect information as to the amount of “wages” Plaintiff and
Fraud Class members earned—Defendants filed fraudulent information returns with the United
States government in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7434(a).
of the Fraud Class members depended upon which Defendant was responsible for tax reporting
relative to Plaintiff and each Fraud Class member. Relative to Plaintiff, Defendant Wells
Holdings, LLC d/b/a Benchmark Bar and Grill filed the fraudulent W-2s with the United States
government.
issued to Plaintiff and Fraud Class members was part of a willful scheme to shift the burden of
paying taxes to Plaintiff and Fraud Class members so that Defendants could covertly retain
minimum wage laws.
Plaintiff and Fraud Class members from Defendants’ gross receipts, Defendants can
89
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
received $100.10
Plaintiff and Fraud Class members, Defendants can ensure that they can always avail themselves
of a tip credit with respect to the compensation paid to Plaintiff and Fraud Class members, and
do not have to pay Plaintiff and Fraud Class members for any shortfall in the hourly rate of pay.
In doing so, Defendants reduce their operating costs, and can therefore retain a greater portion of
their gross income for their own benefit.
Plaintiff and Fraud Class members overstated the amount of “wages” that Plaintiff and Fraud
Class members actually earned during the prior calendar year, Plaintiff and Fraud Class members
were required to pay income tax on income that they did not actually receive. Accordingly,
Defendants’ misrepresentations on the W-2s that they issued to Plaintiff and Fraud Class
members were material.
10
The fact that Four Corners is composed of over 20 different, interconnected entities would also
facilitate Defendants’ concealing the precise amount of net income they received in a calendar year.
90
338. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plaintiff and Fraud Class
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
accurate.
339. Accordingly, Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of the Fraud Class, seeks
damages arising from Defendants’ conduct described herein.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of the Fraud Class, prays for an
Order as follows:

Class Action, as set forth by 735 ILCS 5/2-801, and certifying the Fraud
B. Designating Plaintiff as representative of the Fraud Class and his

undersigned counsel as Fraud Class Counsel;
C. Entering judgment in favor of Plaintiff and the Fraud Class and against
Defendants;
D. Awarding Plaintiff and the Fraud Class an amount equal to the damages
they sustained as a result of Defendants’ fraudulent conduct, plus punitive
damages;
E. Awarding Plaintiff and the Fraud Class reasonable attorneys’ fees and
costs; and
appropriate.
COUNT X
Negligent Misrepresentation
(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Negligent Misrepresentation Class)
91

FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
Negligent Misrepresentation Class of similarly situation employees, pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-
801.
343. Negligent Misrepresentation Class Definition: Plaintiff pursues the requested
relief on behalf of the following Negligent Misrepresentation Class:
Excluded from the Negligent Misrepresentation Class are: (1) Defendants, Defendants’ agents,
subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which Defendants or their
parents have a controlling interest, and those entities’ current and former employees, officers,
and directors; (2) the Judge to whom this case is assigned and the Judge’s immediate family; (3)
any person who executes and files a timely request for exclusion from the Negligent
Misrepresentation Class; (4) any persons who have had their claims in this matter finally
adjudicated and/or otherwise released; and (5) the legal representatives, successors and assigns
of any such excluded person. Plaintiff hereby reserves the right to amend the above class
definition based on discovery and the proofs at trial.
344. Numerosity. The Negligent Misrepresentation Class is so numerous that joinder
of all members is impracticable. Plaintiff estimates that the Negligent Misrepresentation Class,
including both current and former employees over the time period relevant to this action, will
include hundreds of members. This is based on the fact that Defendants operated approximately
twenty (20) bars and restaurants during the time period applicable to this action, and each bar
and restaurant employed about fifty (50) Servers at any given time. The precise number of
Negligent Misrepresentation Class members should be readily available from Defendants’
92
personnel, scheduling, time, and payroll records maintained in accordance with 29 U.S.C. §
211(c).
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
the Negligent Misrepresentation Class, which predominate over any questions affecting only
individual members including, inter alia, the following:
a. Whether Plaintiff’s and Negligent Misrepresentation Class members’

Paystubs and W-2s accurately reflected the amount of Take Home Cash
that Plaintiff and Negligent Misrepresentation Class members were given
by Defendants in connection with the tips that Defendants’ customers
bestowed upon Plaintiff and Negligent Misrepresentation Class members;
b. Whether Defendants knew, or should have known, that the amounts stated
on Plaintiff’s and Negligent Misrepresentation Class members’ Paystubs
and W-2s inaccurately reflected the amount of compensation Defendants
paid to Plaintiff and Negligent Misrepresentation Class members;
c. Whether Defendants knew and intended that Plaintiff and Negligent

Misrepresentation Class members would rely on the amounts stated on
Plaintiff’s and Negligent Misrepresentation Class members’ Paystubs and
W-2s;
d. Whether Plaintiff and Negligent Misrepresentation Class members relied

on the amounts stated on Plaintiff’s and Negligent Misrepresentation Class
members’ Paystubs and W-2s;
e. Whether Plaintiff and the members of the Negligent Misrepresentation

Class have sustained damages and, if so, what is the proper measure of
their damages; and
f. Whether Plaintiff and the members of the Negligent Misrepresentation

Class are entitled to the relief sought, including attorney’s fees.
Negligent Misrepresentation Class. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned class counsel, who are
competent and experienced in the prosecution of complex and class action litigation. The
interests of Plaintiff are aligned with, and not antagonistic to, those of the Negligent
Misrepresentation Class.
93
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
predominate over questions affecting only individual members of the Negligent
Misrepresentation Class. Also, the likelihood that individual members of the Negligent
Misrepresentation Class will prosecute separate actions is remote due to the extensive time and
considerable expense necessary to conduct such litigation, especially in view of the relatively
modest amount of monetary relief at issue for individual Negligent Misrepresentation Class
members.
348. “The tort of negligent misrepresentation involves a breach of the duty to use due
care in obtaining and communicating information upon which others may reasonably be
expected to rely in the conduct of their economic affairs.” E.g., Lehmann, 137 Ill.App.3d at 420;
Mid-Am. Nat. Bank of Chicago v. First Sav. & Loan Ass’n of S. Holland, 161 Ill.App.3d 531, 535
(1st Dist. 1987). A claim for “negligent misrepresentation has essentially the same elements [as
a claim for fraud],11 except that the defendant’s mental state is different. The defendant need not
know that the statement is false. His own carelessness or negligence in ascertaining its truth will
suffice for a cause of action.” Bd. of Educ. of City of Chicago v. A, C & S, Inc., 131 Ill.2d 428,
452 (1989); Avon Hardware Co. v. Ace Hardware Corp., 2013 IL App (1st) 130750, ¶ 15. In
addition, “for negligent misrepresentation, a plaintiff must also allege that the defendant owes a
duty to the plaintiff to communicate accurate information.” A, C & S, 131 Ill.2d at 452; Avon
Hardware, 2013 IL App (1st) 130750 at ¶ 15; Kupper v. Powers, 2017 IL App (3d) 160141, ¶ 40.
11
As set forth in Paragraph 319, “the elements of common law fraud are: (1) a false statement of material
fact; (2) defendant’s knowledge that the statement was false; (3) defendant’s intent that the statement
induce the plaintiff to act; (4) plaintiff’s reliance upon the truth of the statement; and (5) plaintiff’s
damages resulting from reliance on the statement.” E.g., Connick, 174 Ill.2d at 496.
94
349. A duty to communicate accurate information can be created by statute. Lehmann,
137 Ill.App.3d at 421 (Negligent misrepresentation “can result from the failure to provide
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
adequate information when there is a [statutory] duty to provide such information as well as
providing information which is false.”); Mid-Am. Nat. Bank, 161 Ill.App.3d at 535 (same);
Stewart v. Thrasher, 242 Ill.App.3d 10, 15 (4th Dist. 1993) (“A plaintiff [can] recover economic
losses resulting from the negligent misrepresentation of one under a public duty to provide
information.”); see also, Kupper, 2017 IL App (3d) 160141 at ¶ 41 (explaining Lehmann).
350. As the employers of Plaintiff and Negligent Misrepresentation Class members,
Defendants issued W-2s to Plaintiff and Negligent Misrepresentation Class members on an
annual basis.
351. The particular Defendant that issued a W-2 to Plaintiff and each of the Negligent
Misrepresentation Class members depended upon which Defendant was responsible for tax
reporting relative to Plaintiff and each Negligent Misrepresentation Class member. Relative to
Plaintiff, Defendant Wells Holdings, LLC d/b/a Benchmark Bar and Grill issued Plaintiff’s W-2s.
352. The W-2s issued to Plaintiff and Negligent Misrepresentation Class members by
Defendants are “information returns” as defined by 26 U.S.C. § 7434(f). 26 U.S.C. §
6724(d)(1)(A); 26 CFR § 31.6051-2(a). The W-2s issued to Plaintiff and Negligent
Misrepresentation Class members by Defendants are also “payee statements,” as defined by 26
U.S.C. § 6724(d)(2).
353. For purposes of the W-2s issued by Defendants to Plaintiff and Negligent
Misrepresentation Class members, the hourly compensation that Defendants paid to Plaintiff and
Negligent Misrepresentation Class members, as well as the tips that Defendants’ customers
95
bestowed upon Plaintiff and Negligent Misrepresentation Class members, constituted “wages.”
26 U.S.C. § 3121(a); 26 U.S.C. § 3401(a) & (f).

FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
354. Defendants calculated the “wages” on Plaintiff’s and Negligent Misrepresentation
Class members’ W-2s using the information on Plaintiff’s and Negligent Misrepresentation Class
members’ Paystubs from the applicable calendar year. Put another way, the “wages” reflected
on the W-2s that Defendants issued to Plaintiff and Negligent Misrepresentation Class members
were derived by adding the amount of hourly compensation that Plaintiff and Negligent
Misrepresentation Class members earned during the prior calendar year—as reflected Plaintiff’s
and Negligent Misrepresentation Class members’ Paystubs—to the amount of “Cash Tips” stated
on Plaintiff’s and Negligent Misrepresentation Class members’ Paystubs from the prior calendar
year.
355. However, the “Cash Tips” stated on Plaintiff’s and Negligent Misrepresentation
Class members’ Paystubs inaccurately reflected the amount of Take Home Cash that Plaintiff
and Negligent Misrepresentation Class members were given by Defendants in connection with
tips bestowed upon Plaintiff and Negligent Misrepresentation Class members by Defendants’
customers during their respective shifts. In actuality, Plaintiff and Negligent Misrepresentation
Class members received a lesser amount in Take Home Cash in connection with tips bestowed
upon them by Defendants’ customers than the amount of “Cash Tips” stated on their Paystubs.
356. As such, the W-2s issued by Defendants to Plaintiff and Negligent
Misrepresentation Class members overstated the amount of “wages” that Plaintiff and Negligent
Misrepresentation Class members earned during the prior calendar year.
96
357. Defendants filed the W-2s that they issued to Plaintiff and Negligent
Misrepresentation Class members with the United States government, as required by 26 CFR §
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
31.6051-2(a).
358. Defendants had a duty to file correct information returns with the United States
government—pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6721(a)(2)(B) and 26 CFR 301.6721-1—and to furnish
Plaintiff and Negligent Misrepresentation Class members with correct payee statements—
pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6722(a)(2)(B) and 26 CFR 301.6722-1.
359. As such, Defendants had a duty to communicate accurate information in the W-2s
that they issued to Plaintiff and Negligent Misrepresentation Class members because “statutes
requiring information to be filed for public record…create a duty to members of the public” to
provide accurate information. Lehmann, 137 Ill.App.3d at 419; Stewart, 242 Ill.App.3d at 15;
Kupper, 2017 IL App (3d) 160141 at ¶ 41.
360. Defendants knew, or should have known, that the information on the W-2s that
they issued to Plaintiff and Negligent Misrepresentation Class members was false because
Plaintiff and Negligent Misrepresentation Class members accurately declared in Defendants’
POS system the amount of tips bestowed upon them by Defendants’ customers—as required by
26 U.S.C. § 6053(a) and 26 CFR § 31.6053-1(a)—and Defendants had a duty to keep accurate
records relative to the amount of tips declared by Plaintiff and Negligent Misrepresentation Class
361. Plaintiff and Negligent Misrepresentation Class members reasonably believed that
the information in the W-2s issued by Defendants was accurate, and relied upon that information,
because Defendants had a duty to file correct information returns with the United States
government—pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6721(a)(2)(B) and 26 CFR 301.6721-1—and to furnish
97
Plaintiff and Negligent Misrepresentation Class members with correct payee statements—
pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6722(a)(2)(B) and 26 CFR 301.6722-1. Plaintiff and Negligent

FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
Misrepresentation Class members also reasonably believed that the information in the W-2s and
Paystubs issued by Defendants was accurate, and relied upon that information, because
Defendants had a duty to keep accurate records relative to the amount of tips declared by
Plaintiff and Negligent Misrepresentation Class members in Defendants’ POS system—pursuant
to 26 CFR § 31.6001-1(a). Indeed, unlike Defendants, there is no mandatory recordkeeping
requirement imposed on Plaintiff and Negligent Misrepresentation Class members. 26 CFR §
31.6001-1(d). Moreover, “the fact that the [W-2s were] filed for public record amounts to…a
guarantee” that the W-2s were accurate. Lehmann, 137 Ill.App.3d at 421.
362. For the same reasons, Defendants knew and intended that Plaintiff and Negligent
Misrepresentation Class members would rely on the information in the W-2s and Paystubs issued
by Defendants.
363. Accordingly, in filing the W-2s issued by Defendants to Plaintiff and Negligent
Misrepresentation Class members, Defendants negligently misrepresented information—i.e., the
amount of “wages” Plaintiff and Negligent Misrepresentation Class members earned—that
Defendants had a duty to accurately communicate.
364. The particular Defendant that negligently misrepresented information—i.e., the
amount of “wages” Plaintiff and Negligent Misrepresentation Class members earned—to
Plaintiff and Negligent Misrepresentation Class members depended upon which Defendant was
responsible for tax reporting relative to Plaintiff and each Negligent Misrepresentation Class
member. Relative to Plaintiff, Defendant Wells Holdings, LLC d/b/a Benchmark Bar and Grill
negligently misrepresented information concerning the amount of “wages” that Plaintiff earned.
98
Plaintiff and Negligent Misrepresentation Class members overstated the amount of “wages” that
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
Plaintiff and Negligent Misrepresentation Class members actually earned during the prior
calendar year, Plaintiff and Negligent Misrepresentation Class members were required to pay
income tax on income that they did not actually receive. Accordingly, Defendants’
misrepresentations on the W-2s that they issued to Plaintiff and Negligent Misrepresentation
Class members were material.
366. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plaintiff and Negligent
Misrepresentation Class members were harmed by Defendants’ conduct described herein because
they were required to pay a greater amount in income tax than they otherwise should have been,
had their W-2s been accurate.
367. Accordingly, Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of the Negligent
Misrepresentation Class, seeks damages arising from Defendants’ conduct described herein.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of the Negligent Misrepresentation
Class, prays for an Order as follows:

Negligent Misrepresentation Class defined herein;
B. Designating Plaintiff as representative of the Negligent Misrepresentation

Class and his undersigned counsel as Negligent Misrepresentation Class
Counsel;
C. Entering judgment in favor of Plaintiff and the Negligent

Misrepresentation Class and against Defendants;
D. Awarding Plaintiff and the Negligent Misrepresentation Class an amount

equal to the damages they sustained as a result of Defendants’ negligent
conduct;
99
E. Awarding Plaintiff and the Negligent Misrepresentation Class reasonable
attorneys’ fees and costs; and
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
appropriate.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all issues so triable.
Plaintiff ERIK LUNA, individually, and on behalf

of all others similarly situated,
By: /s/ Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr.

Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr.
tom@attorneyzim.com
Sharon A. Harris
sharon@attorneyzim.com
Matthew C. De Re
matt@attorneyzim.com
Nickolas J. Hagman
nick@attorneyzim.com
ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
Chicago, Illinois 60602
(312) 440-0020 telephone
(312) 440-4180 facsimile
Firm I.D. No. 34418
Counsel for Plaintiff, the putative Collective Group,

and the putative Classes
100
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
EXHIBIT 1
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
EXHIBIT 2
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT – CHANCERY DIVISION
ERIK LUNA, individually, and on behalf of all

)
FILED DATE: 7/19/2018 1:42 PM 2018CH09060
others similarly situated, )

)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) No.
)
4C KINZIE INVESTOR LLC d/b/a Highline )
Bar & Lounge, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
________________________________________ )
CONSENT TO BECOME A PARTY PLAINTIFF
I, Erik Luna, formerly an employee of one or more of the above-captioned Defendants,
consent to become a party Plaintiff in the above-captioned action.
Dated: _____________________ __________________________________

Signature of Former Employee
EXHIBIT 3

Complaint Against Four Corners, Filed July 19, 2018

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Complaint Against Four Corners, Filed July 19, 2018

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Return Date: No return date scheduled 12-Person Jury

Hearing Date: 11/16/2018 10:00 AM - 10:00 AM

COLLECTIVE AND CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr.

Counsel for Plaintiff, the putative

THE DEFENDANTS .....................................................................................................................1

JURISDICTION AND VENUE ..................................................................................................19

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ......................................................................................................20

FACTS RELEVANT TO PLAINTIFF ......................................................................................21

THE WAGE AND HOUR CLAIMS ..........................................................................................23

THE INCOME TAX CLAIMS ...................................................................................................30

COUNT I: Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ............................................................32

Collective Action Allegations ..........................................................................................32

Substantive Allegations ...................................................................................................35

COUNT II: Violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ......................................................38

Class Action Allegations ..................................................................................................38

Substantive Allegations ...................................................................................................40

COUNT III: Violation of the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance........................................43

Class Action Allegations ..................................................................................................43

Substantive Allegations ...................................................................................................45

Class Action Allegations ..................................................................................................48

Substantive Allegations ...................................................................................................51

COUNT V: Conversion ...............................................................................................................54

Class Action Allegations ..................................................................................................54

Substantive Allegations ...................................................................................................56

Class Action Allegations ..................................................................................................59

Substantive Allegations ...................................................................................................61

Class Action Allegations ..................................................................................................67

Substantive Allegations ...................................................................................................69

COUNT VIII: Civil Conspiracy .................................................................................................76

Class Action Allegations ..................................................................................................76

Substantive Allegations ...................................................................................................78

COUNT IX: Fraud .......................................................................................................................84

Class Action Allegations ..................................................................................................84

Substantive Allegations ...................................................................................................86

COUNT X: Negligent Misrepresentation ..................................................................................91

Class Action Allegations ..................................................................................................92

Substantive Allegations ...................................................................................................94

JURY DEMAND ........................................................................................................................100

Lounge’s customers. As such, 4C Kinzie Investor LLC is an “employer” of the Servers at

Kinzie Investor LLC and those Servers as defined by 26 U.S.C. § 3121(b).

3. Defendant 4C 1001 W. Lake Opco, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company

4. Defendant 4C 15 E. Illinois Operations, LLC is an Illinois limited liability

customers. As such, 4C 15 E. Illinois Operations, LLC is an “employer” of the Servers at

and 26 U.S.C. § 3401(d), and there is an “employment” relationship between 4C 15 E. Illinois

Operations, LLC and those Servers as defined by 26 U.S.C. § 3121(b).

5. Defendant Four Corners Tavern Fund Management, LLC is a Delaware limited

Defendant 4C 15 E. Illinois Operations, LLC. Through 4C 15 E. Illinois Operations, LLC, Four

Servers as defined by 26 U.S.C. § 3121(b).

6. Defendant 1500 N. Wells Opco, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company

7. Defendant 4C 1500 N. Wells Opco, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company

8. Defendant Talbott Associates, L.P. is an Illinois limited partnership with its

9. Defendant 4C Wrigley, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its

is an “employment” relationship between 4C Riverside, LLC and those Servers as defined by 26

Servers as defined by 26 U.S.C. § 3121(b).

defined by 26 U.S.C. § 3121(b).

customers. As such, Wells Holding Manager, LLC is an “employer” of the Servers at

Holding Manager, LLC and those Servers as defined by 26 U.S.C. § 3121(b).

known as Brownstone Tavern & Grill (Madison and Ada).

Grill (Sheffield and Oakdale).

North Tap, Inc. and those Servers as defined by 26 U.S.C. § 3121(b).

drinks to Ranalli’s’s customers. As such, Rocco’s, LLC is an “employer” of the Servers at

those Servers as defined by 26 U.S.C. § 3121(b).